My beef with Fox News.

[TheMojoPin]

Yeah, I'm sure this is a complete anti-shocker.

But really, I swear, my reasons are not as nefarious as one may assume.

I watch a few hours of TV a day, and most of it is news. I flip between MSNBC, Headline News, CNN and Fox constantly, as well as BBC News, when it's on.

Fox, surprise, surprise, is the network that pisses me off the most. But it ALL stems from their motto.

"Fair & balanced."

First of all, it's a blatant lie, and impossible. ALL news is going to be biased to some degree, as long as humans are involved in researching, writing and reporting it. It's inevitable. You will NEVER have a news netork that's perfectly 50-50, or even close. So why does Fox bother with this ludicrous facade?

Clearly, they want to be seen as the "anti-CNN," since CNN is perceived (And often rightly so) as having a "leftist" slant. So far, so good. But since when have they EVER been fair or balanced? As much as CNN skews to the left, Fox skews to the right. How does THAT make them "fair and balanced?" Having a couple pundit shows where you have people yelling people back and forth is not fair and balanced news...those are editorial commentaries. People getting their news from "Hannity & Colmes" or "The O'Reilly Factor" (Their top shows, with the highest ratings by fair, smack in the middle of prime time) is as retarded as somebody getting their news from "The Daily Show."

Basically, I have no problem with Fox News as a news organization overall. They serve to effectively counterbalance CNN. Both networks are "biased" in their perspectives, writing, quick editorial comments and even their onscreen graphics. We're not getting away from this kinda shit any time soon, so it's GOOD both networks exist as a skewed kind of ying and yang. But the logo has GOT to go. It's ludicrous that someone like Sean Hannity will follow up some asinine rant designed to make up people's minds FOR them with a "fair and balanced" plug.

What's wrong with "Fox News: A Different Perspective?" It still serves the core audience that has made Fox #1 in the calbe news wars...the people that want an alternative to CNN.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[mikeyboy]

What's wrong with "Fox News: A Different Perspective?" It still serves the core audience that has made Fox #1 in the calbe news wars...the people that want an alternative to CNN.


Because most people do not want to believe that the news they watch is skewed. they perceive that the news reporting that follows most closely with their ideologies is "correct" instead of slanted. A different perspective implies a different viewpoint and most people would prefer to believe that all news is objectively reported. I don't think any news organization that wears their leanings on their sleeves will ever be taken seriously.

The "fair and balanced" bit is laying it on pretty thick, though.


<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=mikeyboy">
Ron & Fez Show Log (http://www.osirusonline.com/ronfez.htm)

[TheMojoPin]

There's gotta be something else they can go with.

I mean, the current one is like Twinkies deciding their new ad push will be, "TWINKIES: GOOD FOR YOUR HEART."

Anyone got any ideas for a new Fox News slogan?

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[FUNKMAN]

just like my bookreading i prefer to look at the pictures and come to my own conclusions...

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/fm2_sig.jpg">

[blakjeezis]

Does CNN have a slogan? Does it say anything about them being skewed? Don't they portray themsleves as being 'down the middle'? I don't know. I rarely watch either; I really don't watch TV for that matter. All I know of CNN's marketing is the James Earl Jones bit.

That being said, I'm sure CNN don't overtly say," If you're a bed-wetting, commie pinko, then we're the news channel for you, hippie!" You know?

I mean, I agree that it's a farce for FoxNews to use 'Fair and Balanced' but it's as farcical for CNN to pretend to be unbiased as well. It's just that Rupert Murdoch has a little more cajones about it than Ted Turner. Is Turner still involved in CNN? I'm so out of the loop.

<IMG SRC =http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/bj_sig.jpg>
If I were any better, I'd have to be twins!!
<marquee><font color=red>INRI</font> White people are so scared of blakjeezis<font color=red> INRI</font></marquee>
Broken bones sticking out of her virgin, white gown/She spread herself out like butter when she smacked the ground.

This message was edited by blakjeezis on 8-16-04 @ 1:01 AM

[HBox]

I think CNN's slogan is something like "The News America Trusts" or something like that and MSNBC's is "HEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SOMEBODY WATCH PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

[TheMojoPin]

I mean, I agree that it's a farce for FoxNews to use 'Fair and Balanced' but it's as farcical for CNN to pretend to be unbiased as well.

I went WAY out of my to indicate that CNN is just as biased as Fox, just in the other "direction." They also have never really advertised that they do or do not have a bias, if that makes sense.

Like HBox said, CNN's is something along the lines of "the news America trusts," which is pretty ludicrous in and of itself, but it isn't anywhere near as blatantly false as "fair and balanced," or repeated about 1,000 times. CNN doesn't even use that logo with all of their own station breaks or show bumpers, AND that logo only showed up AFTER Fox came along with "fair and balanced." Prior to that, CNN just went with "America's News Network," which it was for almost two decades.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 8-16-04 @ 1:11 AM

[blakjeezis]

Fair enough.

It just seems that you're asking FN to say 'Hey, we have an agenda', which is fine I don't have a problem with that, but you're giving CNN a pass. They (CNN) don't overtly say they're unbiased, but is that any different than FN saying they don't have an agenda when they obviously do?

If the American public is unable to see that these channels are skewed, and that's what it seems you are saying because you're concern is that people are going to believe FN's slogan (at least I assume that is the root of your problem with it), then by CNN not saying they're biased they are perpetrating as big a lie as FN is, just in a different way.

I'm now dizzy, thank you very much.


(For a transcript of this post in English, PM me. . . I'll ignore you, but at least you'll feel like you're doing something.)

<IMG SRC =http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/bj_sig.jpg>
If I were any better, I'd have to be twins!!
<marquee><font color=red>INRI</font> White people are so scared of blakjeezis<font color=red> INRI</font></marquee>
Broken bones sticking out of her virgin, white gown/She spread herself out like butter when she smacked the ground.

This message was edited by blakjeezis on 8-16-04 @ 1:33 AM

[FUNKMAN]

i think the majority of these news agencies and stations would not be able to determine if they were biased... it seems they truly believe in what they are doing and that it is a 'vital' part of human existence... i do not believe in this 'do not have to reveal their sources' thing some of the news they report has a big impact on someone's life and you cannot take everyone at their word...

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/fm2_sig.jpg">

[monsterone]

news... you can't rely on one sourse or another. you have to be able to read betweeen the lines. it;s all up to the indivual.

<center><img border=1 src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=monsterone01"><br></center>

<center>

<font color="blue" size="1">sit your five-dollar ass down before i make change.
</font>


<font color="white">moe & horde king, come back soon</font>


</center>
[color=White]

[Mike Teacher]

Anyone got any ideas for a new Fox News slogan?


We report. We decide.

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/anisig3">

[ADF]

<i>Fox: Foxy Ladies</i>

<center><a href="http://somesuch.org" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.somesuch.org/sigpics/heroine.gif"></a><i><br><br><b>Roses are red... Violets are blue... All of my base... Are belong to you.</i></b></center>

[golfcourseguy]

Fox News: Because half-truths are better than none.

" editing posts since day one"

This message was edited by golfcourseguy on 8-16-04 @ 9:19 AM

[TheMojoPin]

bj is a wise, wise man.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Tall_James]

FOX News - We've Cornered The Market On Hot Blonde Reporter Types


<img src=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/tj12_sig.jpg>

[Freebird]

Between channel 11's morning news, Despierta America and Primer Impacto, there are no better-looking newswomen or reporters.

My spanish is halting at best and I'd still rather get my news there!!

-----------------------------
Now I'm starving

I'm about to turn it up a notch!

[DarkHippie]

Fox News: We've got titties

<IMG SRC=http://home.comcast.net/~jamesgpatton/eo.jpg>
<marquee> Check out DarkHippie's latest story, "Keeper", at http://home.pcisys.net/~drmforge/dftoc2.htm </marquee>

[keithy_19]

Fox News is number one in cable news because of the foxes at fox. Maybe if CNN had some hot females on it, I'd be a liberal.

http://64.177.177.182/katylina/50s_sig.jpg

[keithy_19]

Fox News: The news that men who like hot babes watch. They report, you masterbate.

http://64.177.177.182/katylina/50s_sig.jpg

[jeffdwright2001]

Fox News is number one in cable news because of the foxes at fox. Maybe if CNN had some hot females on it, I'd be a liberal.

Sorry Keithy, liberals don't neck. Then again, I'm not sure there are any Republicans that do either.

BTW - please don't send any fan mail to the female reporters. It'd break their hearts to have you dump them in a second letter.

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v297/jeffdwright2001/sigs/rfnet-jdw.jpg
"Man is the only animal that blushes . . . or needs to" - Mark Twain
Thanks to Reefy for the sigpic!

This message was edited by jeffdwright2001 on 8-16-04 @ 12:27 PM

[A.J.]

Between channel 11's morning news, Despierta America and Primer Impacto, there are no better-looking newswomen or reporters.

My spanish is halting at best and I'd still rather get my news there!!

-----------------------------
Now I'm starving

I'm about to turn it up a notch!

Latin networks: Best looking anchors....EVER!

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[FUNKMAN]

Fox News - where you get the best oral in the business

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/fm2_sig.jpg">

[Yerdaddy]

I'm still not buying that there is an overarching liberal bias at CNN or any of the other "maintstream news" outlets. I've put the challenge out on the board numerous times over the years for someone to show me the objective, rational proof that the mainstream media is biased. I've recieved bullshit answers every time, like "if you don't see it then you're biased" and I've been shown the cover of books that I'm supposed to read but that the person apparently hadn't read or they could have made the case themselves I would assume, and generally I've been called a commie bastard for not seeing it. So I'll put out the challenge again. See what I get this time.

What I know about the "liberal media" I mainly know about the New York Times and the Washington Post. I've been reading them the most over the last 4-5 years. Before that I used to call them "conservative biased" or "corporate biased" because they didn't seem to say exactly what I wanted them to say about the world. Truth is, I didn't want to read them, and it's a part of every nut's world view that if the mainstream of society doesn't share your world view then the're being lied to. Liberals accuse the media of bias, the conservatives accuse the media of bias. It seems to me that the conservative critics are simply pissed that the news isn't conservative enough for them, just like it wasn't liberal enough for me.

So they got Fox News for themselves. Thank god for like-minded Australian billionaires. And now we have the argument that Fox is just the conservative equivalent of CNN. I don't see it. It assumes that the media was liberal in the first place, a fact I'm still waiting to see established other than by some anecdotal, selective fact-using conservative authors making millions serving an uncritical public. I've read through the books that supposedly make the case and the arguments haven't adhered to the rules of logical argument in any of them I've seen.

But Fox's existence is now supposed to convince us that it's a ballanced news world. The argument is supposed to be closed and the premise of a liberal CNN is supposed to go away because conservatives are happy now. Well I'm not happy with it. Because CNN and Fox are not equal sides of the same ideological coin. CNN actually TRIES to be objective. Whether it achieves it or not is subjective, of course, but it has institutionalized standards and fact-checkers and spends more time reporting the news than it does editorializing on it. It's reputation and viewership depends on the sense that it is objective and trying to get the facts. But Fox is blantantly serving a niche ideological market. It gets its reputation and viewership by telling a certain audience what it wants to hear. It is a totally different product than CNN. Where's the CNN counterpart to Bill O'Rielly's vitriol? Who on CNN gets higher ratings by attacking guests and spewing simplistic populist rants inbetween the 30 plugs for his "premier memberships" and his books and his blow-up dolls? How about CNN's Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter appearances? Maybe I haven't watched CNN enough but I haven't seen anything on CNN that matches what I've seen on Fox. I've seen the equivalent of Fox in "The Nation" magazine and on Air America radio, but not on TV. My hardcore liberal friends don't have a TV network.

What am I worried about then, since I don't have to watch Fox? I'm worried about us getting a British news system, where all the news outlets are divided into liberal and conservative and people pick the news bias they want to hear. I don't think we can handle that kind of system. We're too polarized as it is. I don't want anyone to create a liberal news channel. I wouldn't watch it. But I also don't like the idea of a conservative spin station is being equated with real news stations without any critical analysis. CNN is more objective than Fox because it TRIES to be objective. It has standards. Fox does not even try, for the most part, (I have seen news reporting from Fox that is good reporting without editorializing, but there doesn't seem t

[Recyclerz]

FOX News - We've Cornered The Market On Hot Blonde Reporter Types


More Right-Wing disinformation, TJ ;)

http://www.tv-heads.com/networkpages/amyrobach.jpg
Amy Robach - MSNBC (perhaps the only reason to watch Imus in the Morning)


Semi-serious summary of my thoughts on this matter:
- Major media news outlets (TV, radio, newspapers & now internet) abandoned long ago the "search for objective truth" and are now (or are trying to be) profit centers for their owners.
- the vast majority of people are more interested in having their own belief systems confirmed and justified rather than be confronted with facts or informed contradictory opinions that will force them to think
- the people who run the media outlets are aware of the first two points

Also, can someone define what they mean by left-wing? Noam Chomsky or Susan Sontag, who I would consider left-wing, rarely get a platform on any of the major outlets as far as I can tell. Is anyone on TV challenging the market system or arguing for a gov't. takeover of ExxonMobil? Please enlighten me.

[Edit: Oh yeah & what Yerdaddy said.]

And lastly, I think Golfcourse guy deserves the winning cowbell.


Fox News: Because half-truths are better than none.


<IMG SRC="http://www.hometown.aol.com/recyclerz/myhomepage/sigpic1.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US">
[b]There ain't no asylum here.
King Solomon he never lived 'round here.[b]

This message was edited by Recyclerz on 8-16-04 @ 12:36 PM

[LiquidCourage]

Networks like the BBC seem to be the only decent thing out there for international news. The major American networks have this pre-Christopher Columbus type view of the world, ie there's absolutely nothing outside of this country.

[Yerdaddy]

Networks like the BBC seem to be the only decent thing out there for international news. The major American networks have this pre-Christopher Columbus type view of the world, ie there's absolutely nothing outside of this country.

I agree. OH MY GOD!!! WHO HAS BLOTTED OUT THE SUN!!!! DAMN YOU FATES!!!!! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELLLLLLLL...

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[LiquidCourage]

It's so true though, seriously. For example, I always heard about the "security fence" in Israel in the American press. They make it sound like it's this dinky little thing you might put around your backyard. I never saw a picture of it until the BBC...This thing's practically a 400 mile Berlin wall, yet it's constantly referred to as "the fence". It's almost a joke.

[TheMojoPin]

Yerdaddy and Recyclerz make a great point, and it's something I've been reading a lot of...prior to Fox News, despite the claims of liberal bias, you rarely, if EVER, got to see the liberal equivalents of Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly on CNN. In fact, you STILL don't. And the conservative pundits NEVER get called on ANYTHING for fear of "proving" liberal bias. These people literally can say whatever they want and the only thing they have to fear are higher ratings.

For example...Hannity was railing on his radio show the other day about how Barnes & Noble as a company has "refused" to carry the new anti-Kerry book, Unfit For Command. Nevermind that when he said that, we had already sold 30 copies the day prior, and sold out of our remaining stock later that day. He flat-out lied...or he has horrible fact-checkers. Either way, he's yet to make any kind of retraction, he never will, and he feels zero need to. People like him make up these absurd conspiracies and crusades where they don't exist. Unfit For Command is hard to find because it's put out by a shit-ass publisher that can't handle the volume demand it's getting for the book from stores in multiple companies nation-wide in the wake of all this sudden publication. They rushed the printing ahead two weeks, before they could meet their original estimated quota, and so now it's almost impossible to keep in stores until they finally get their shit together later this week. But hey, why let the truth get in the way of a good witch-hunt. I've literally been yelled at and chastised for working in a "biased" STORE for being sold out of this damn thing, and I lay the blame SQUARELY in irresponsible pundits like Hannity.

On the upside, we've sold over 1,400 copies of the 9/11 Report since it came out, so maybe there's hope for people yet.

LC makes a good point about this country's "blinders-on" approach to international news, and Fox is chief on that list of offenders. How many times, even POST-9/11, have you seen Fox devote live news coverage time to CAR CHASES around the country? What the fuck is that? That's not news. That's Rupert Murdoch having an exploding erection over the fact he can now have "World's Scariest Police Chases" shown LIVE just for the sake of ratings.


Fox is hardly the only network guilty of this myopic vision. They just take the lead with the sheer number of hours they're willing to devote to things like car chases and localized murder trials as opposed to significant global issues. The general rule at ALL the networks when it comes to international affairs is obviously the old "if it bleeds, it leads" system of reporting. No wonder people in this country are so scared/angry/defensive about the rest of the world. Based on our news networks, the rest of the world are just contstantly killing and harming each other or dying of some awful disease or natural disaster, and that's IT. I read a book called "Compassion Fatigue" about this exact mentality when it comes to most of the mjaor global news networks (BBC and Star included), and it's just gotten worse since then.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 8-16-04 @ 3:52 PM

[LiquidCourage]

"How many times, even POST-9/11, have you seen Fox devote live news coverage time to CAR CHASES around the country? What the fuck is that? That's not news. That's Rupert Murdoch having an exploding erection over the fact he can now have "World's Scariest Police Chases" shown LIVE just for the sake of ratings."

Exactly.
Meanwhile, 300 people might have been killed in a train wreck in Mongolia, or 10,000s killed in floods in Bangladesh or someplace and you'll never hear about it, because some guy decided to blow a few stop signs in an early 80s pumpkin orange Datsun.

[Yerdaddy]

Yerdaddy and Recyclerz make a great point, and it's something I've been reading a lot of...prior to Fox News, despite the claims of liberal bias, you rarely, if EVER, got to see the liberal equivalents of Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly on CNN. In fact, you STILL don't. And the conservative pundits NEVER get called on ANYTHING for fear of "proving" liberal bias. These people literally can say whatever they want and the only thing they have to fear are higher ratings.

For example...Hannity was railing on his radio show the other day about how Barnes & Noble as a company has "refused" to carry the new anti-Kerry book, Unfit For Command. Nevermind that when he said that, we had already sold 30 copies the day prior, and sold out of our remaining stock later that day. He flat-out lied...or he has horrible fact-checkers. Either way, he's yet to make any kind of retraction, he never will, and he feels zero need to. People like him make up these absurd conspiracies and crusades where they don't exist. Unfit For Command is hard to find because it's put out by a shit-ass publisher that can't handle the volume demand it's getting for the book from stores in multiple companies nation-wide in the wake of all this sudden publication. They rushed the printing ahead two weeks, before they could meet their original estimated quota, and so now it's almost impossible to keep in stores until they finally get their shit together later this week. But hey, why let the truth get in the way of a good witch-hunt. I've literally been yelled at and chastised for working in a "biased" STORE for being sold out of this damn thing, and I lay the blame SQUARELY in irresponsible pundits like Hannity.

On the upside, we've sold over 1,400 copies of the 9/11 Report since it came out, so maybe there's hope for people yet.

LC makes a good point about this country's "blinders-on" approach to international news, and Fox is chief on that list of offenders. How many times, even POST-9/11, have you seen Fox devote live news coverage time to CAR CHASES around the country? What the fuck is that? That's not news. That's Rupert Murdoch having an exploding erection over the fact he can now have "World's Scariest Police Chases" shown LIVE just for the sake of ratings.


Fox is hardly the only network guilty of this myopic vision. They just take the lead with the sheer number of hours they're willing to devote to things like car chases and localized murder trials as opposed to significant global issues. The general rule at ALL the networks when it comes to international affairs is obviously the old "if it bleeds, it leads" system of reporting. No wonder people in this country are so scared/angry/defensive about the rest of the world. Based on our news networks, the rest of the world are just contstantly killing and harming each other or dying of some awful disease or natural disaster, and that's IT. I read a book called "Compassion Fatigue" about this exact mentality when it comes to most of the mjaor global news networks (BBC and Star included), and it's just gotten worse since then.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 8-16-04 @ 3:52 PM
You smeared your paragraphs around to make your post look longer than mine, BUT I CAUGHT YOU, YOU CHEATING WHORE!!!!!!1 when did I become reeshy?

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[42nd-delay]

Ted Turner hasn't been in charge of CNN for at least a few years now, so I don't know who would be the ideological force behind a liberal CNN. In fact, it's owned by AOL/Time Warner, who I wouldn't guess to be a liberal corporation (I don't know if it's onservative either, but it's certainly not owned by a left-wing Murdoch as far as I'm aware).

------------------------------
"42nd-delay is the only person who's making sense." - Ron, 3-12-02