Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Was Beck allowed free reign and a chalkboard at CNN like he was at Fox?

Every news station has bias. Every person has bias. Bias is not only unavoidable, it is good. Every time you see a news report on murder, that story will inevitably come with the bias that 'murder is bad'. Hoping for news without bias is not only impractical, it's hoping for bad journalism.

Not only that, but it is good to have a diverse range of views, different ways of seeing the world. It is good and informative to hear an argument from another point of view, and people should be able to read a differing point of view, and though they probably won't switch sides entirely, they should draw some information away from it, some knowledge.

Provided, of course, that the other side is arguing in good faith, relying on facts and reason to produce arguments they personally believe. And the issue, simply, is that FOX news constantly lies.

There was a bit of a storm on FOX news about Justice Jelena Kagan presiding over the Affordable Care Act, after she sent an email implying she was happy the bill had passed. To build their case that taking her off the case was not only good government, but the constitutionally mandated course of action, FOX news cited Article 28, Section 144 of the constitution;



The problem is that there is no Article 28 of the constitution, there are only seven articles. And none of them contain that wording. It actually comes from title 28 of the US Code, that is to say a law passed by congress. The point is that FOX clearly felt that a law passed by congress wasn't enough, they wanted it to come from the constitution.

And so they lied, and said it was from the constitution itself. And that's the issue, FOX news doesn't present it's arguments in good faith. It lies in the most blatant of ways.

And it embraces a mindset that it's viewers shouldn't look elsewhere for news, because every else is biased. And that's why its viewers end up less informed than people that don't even watch news.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kronk wrote:Arguing with shuma is a waste of time.

He's right, you're wrong.

(in his own mind)

The sooner you hit that little button, the better your life will be. Do it. Push it. Push it real good.

So that's the standard of debate, huh? Not comment on FOX or any other media, just an attack on a dakka poster.

Pretty sad, really.

Anti Solar video

Why didn't he go over possible property value loss. Think her opening focused on that then went on from there.

High Speed Rail

You know the one in WI wasn't implemented either but 9 bil was cut from 50 billion for this year right? Its like military budget cuts

Here's an example of a non Fox news center. General idea

Over a period of just three and a half days, NBC, CBS and ABC have developed an insatiable hunger for the Herman Cain sexual harassment story, devoting an incredible 50 stories to the allegations since Monday morning. In contrast, over a similar period these networks mostly ignored far more substantial and serious scandals relating to Bill Clinton.


Media Research Center

Sebster that was aimed at me since I did a piss poor job debating



As I said before. All news are going to play to their listeners tunes

kronk wrote:

Da Boss wrote:I'm sorry guys, but from this observers position, Shuma is wiping the floor with you guys.

The reason not to argue with Shuma on this is easy.

He's trying to portray Fox News as the worst info-tainment outlet with strong Republican ass-kissing leanings without admitting that MSNBC, CNN, and other stations are also horrible info-tainment outlets with strong Democratic ass-kissing leanings.

I have no respect for anyone that throws crap at other people without admitting to other's valid points.

So, let him shout to the heavens all he wants. Just the same-old, same-old Shuma.

The difference is the level of lies told by the stations. I have seen CNN and MSNBC present some incredibly terrible stories, superficial and sensationalist crap, and I wouldn't recommend anyone use them as a primary source for their news. But I've never seem them tell outright lies like you'll see coming out of FOX news.

There are good right wing sources of news out there. The Times newspaper, out of London, is a marvellous paper, and while likely a little dry for some it tells the news through the eyes of a conservative filter, while maintaining high journalistic standards.

Whereas FOX news lies, and lies constantly.

Jihadin wrote:Anti Solar video

Why didn't he go over possible property value loss. Think her opening focused on that then went on from there.

High Speed Rail

You know the one in WI wasn't implemented either but 9 bil was cut from 50 billion for this year right? Its like military budget cuts

Here's an example of a non Fox news center. General idea

Over a period of just three and a half days, NBC, CBS and ABC have developed an insatiable hunger for the Herman Cain sexual harassment story, devoting an incredible 50 stories to the allegations since Monday morning. In contrast, over a similar period these networks mostly ignored far more substantial and serious scandals relating to Bill Clinton.


Media Research Center

Sebster that was aimed at me since I did a piss poor job debating



As I said before. All news are going to play to their listeners tunes

I wasn't asking/expecting you to defind the video i posted. but you can really watch those
and not see how they manipulated the story, truth or viewer?

Frazzled wrote:In several of those countries its actually illegal to be a Christian or convert to Christianity. Pakistan had a minister capped recently for daring to defend Christians from being persecuted. This is not supporting your case.

That would harm is case if the issue was 'are there majority muslim countries that embrace religious tolerance?' But it isn't. It is 'are there majority muslim countries that are democratic?'

Please pay closer attention.

Figuring things out for yourself is practically the only freedom anyone really has nowadays. Use that freedom.

Monster Rain wrote:The question I keep coming back to is why the fact that Fox News has a conservative bias needs to be discussed ad nauseam.

Because people keep pretending it isn't true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:Beause folks find that bias offensive, and those types of folks tend to want to shout down points of view they don't agree with.

No-one at any point has claimed FOX news needs to be shut down.

Don't make things up. It makes you look foolish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:Because only conservatives lie and the must be stopped, derp.

No, all kinds of sources lie.

But FOX news is the only major station that lies as a matter of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:Let's look at some of the journalism scandals involving integrity:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/10/national/main665727.shtml

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_ethics/casestudy_blair.php

I guess Dan Rather and Jason Blair were good ol' Fox News folks huh....

When a news station releases poor reporting, and fires those involved... that's what you're supposed to do.

It is what FOX news doesn't do.

Tell me, how many people did FOX news over its claim that Justice Kagan was required to remove herself from the ACA case by constitution?

CptJake wrote:Someone else has claimed Fox is the worst, lies the most, and gets paid to do so. I want proof. I want stats.

Jake

I hope you are equally demanding of Fox given some of the rubbish they spout about topics like global warming.

Frazzled wrote:And thats where the statistics come in. Too many controls to manipulate. we should be able to see all the variables that are "controlled" on how they are controlled. Partisanship is controlled? How? Why?

You survey people for their political affiliation, and then you sort them into four groups;

1) FOX news who identify as conservative
2) FOX new viewers identify as conservative
3) FOX news viewers who do not identify as conservative
4) non-FOX news viewers who do not identify as conservative

You then compare group 1 with group 2, and check the difference in information, and compare group 3 with group 4, and check the difference in information.

And that's today's lesson in things that aren't rocket science.

Interestingly, one could aruge the Egyptian government didn't fall until...today.

One you could argue anything, but in this case it'd be silly. The interim military government was distinctly seperate government to the Mubarik regime.

sebster wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:The question I keep coming back to is why the fact that Fox News has a conservative bias needs to be discussed ad nauseam.

Because people keep pretending it isn't true.

So what?

Seriously. People watch it. Do you think if it wasn't on tv that the people who enjoy it would have a different world view?

There are incidents of other news organizations engaging in unethical practices. This "stop liking what I don't like" thing is tiresome.

CptJake wrote:I never used the "they do it to" to defend anyone. I intended to show that the two biggest journalistic breaches of integrity I could find in recent years did not come from Fox.

They were scandals because people expect better of the likes of CBS and the NYT. They attempt to maintain a reputation for truth, and when that isn't the case people and the organisation take it very seriously. People get fired over those lies.

On the other hand, FOX is a cable news service that lies as a general matter of policy. When people point out the lies, no-one cares.

Blair got fired and nationally disgraced for what he did at the NYT. On the other hand. Andrew Briebart gets hired again and again by FOX news.

I've also showed a chart that shows independents see Fox as reliable as CNN in an earlier post.

"People think they're good" is not the same thing as actually being good. I mean, I could show you a chart where people said they thought those fruit juice stores at the shopping centre are healthy, but that gak will kill you even if 100% of people thought it was healthy.

Someone else has claimed Fox is the worst, lies the most, and gets paid to do so. I want proof. I want stats.

The OP gave it. I mean, for feth's sake.

I'm a Fox guy. Shep Smith is a pimp.

dogma wrote:I'm not sure that Fox really manipulates its viewers so much as plays to their existential preferences, and that, despite their success, they aren't really very good at it. Fox has been successful due to uniqueness, it is the only unabashed conservative news source on television so its gets that entire part of the market, and its tendency to aim at the lowest common denominator in terms of message.

I'd also say that its unlikely that Fox creates uninformed viewers, but instead that uninformed viewers tend to watch Fox.

But one isn't simply uninformed or informed, they get from the former to the latter by watching and reading informative sources.

It'd be different if we were talking about viewers of one station or another being stupid, but no-one is so stupid to hear that Syrian is still in revolution fail to understand that. So really we're looking at something they just haven't been told at all.

I'd say it's more likely that survey involved focussed on things that FOX news doesn't cover. Like the Egyptian and Syrian revolutions, stuff of international importance. Whereas FOX news focusses on partisan political nonsense, like 'is Obama a secret muslim?'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Glenn Beck worked at Fox for less time than he worked at CNN (as headline news).

Would your allegation then equally apply to CNN?

If Glenn Beck's behaviour at CNN was identical to his behaviour at FOX news.

It wasn't, and Glenn Beck took on an entirely different persona in his move to FOX news, so your point is not only wrong, the opposite is proven by how Beck acted on FOX.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:Over a period of just three and a half days, NBC, CBS and ABC have developed an insatiable hunger for the Herman Cain sexual harassment story, devoting an incredible 50 stories to the allegations since Monday morning. In contrast, over a similar period these networks mostly ignored far more substantial and serious scandals relating to Bill Clinton.

Do you really believe that? I mean, from what I saw there was a media frenzy over the Clinton allegations. Coverage was constant, and far greater than the Cain coverage, which makes sense given he was a president and not just a guy looking for a party nomination.

Sebster that was aimed at me since I did a piss poor job debating

Sorry, I don't know what you mean.

And you shouldn't be so hard on yourself, you've done a decent job of selling your point, from what I've seen.

As I said before. All news are going to play to their listeners tunes

Which isn't good, but unforunately inevitable in this day and age. The decision by MSNBC to basically copy FOX news (but for the left wing) was very unfortunate.

But what really matters is whether that agency is lying. FOX news lies, constantly, and the result is poorly informed viewers.

I wasn't asking/expecting you to defind the video i posted. but you can really watch those
and not see how they manipulated the story, truth or viewer?

Both. I own property so I see where she's going. She stayed on topic.

but




another




Felt bad for this Imam




Lack of situational awareness




throwing youtube video's at each other is not going to end.

All news media screws up, stick with their fan source, or go with lack of info. Jihadin wrote:

Over a period of just three and a half days, NBC, CBS and ABC have developed an insatiable hunger for the Herman Cain sexual harassment story, devoting an incredible 50 stories to the allegations since Monday morning. In contrast, over a similar period these networks mostly ignored far more substantial and serious scandals relating to Bill Clinton.


Do you really believe that? I mean, from what I saw there was a media frenzy over the Clinton allegations. Coverage was constant, and far greater than the Cain coverage, which makes sense given he was a president and not just a guy looking for a party nomination.

Here's another

In only eight and a half days, NBC, CBS and ABC have devoted a staggering 99 stories to sexual harassment charges against Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain. In comparison, eight days into Bill Clinton's scandal's with Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick, there were a combined eight reports.

I remember quite well the coverage on Clinton since we were going through the Cliton drawdown. News didn't show much of it then of course Monica Lewinsky visual came out..seriously...if JFK nailed Marylin Monroe in the White House then Pres. Clinton could have had Playboy's Playmates of the Year in the office

Monster Rain wrote:So what?

Seriously. People watch it. Do you think if it wasn't on tv that the people who enjoy it would have a different world view?

I think the station has played a significant part in pulling the right wing of US politics into more of an extreme position.

I believe the Tea Party thing would not have existed or would have fizzled out without the support and favourable media coverage provided by FOX news.

There are incidents of other news organizations engaging in unethical practices. This "stop liking what I don't like" thing is tiresome.

Seriously, that's not an argument.

"There's a worm in your apple."
"So? I saw a banana that had a really manky bruise on it."
"Well don't eat that either. Don't eat any fruit that's infested or bruised, because there's a lot of fruit out there that isn't bruised or unhealthy."
"No seriously, the banana had a really horrible bruise on it, look here's a picture."
"Gyaargh, you actually took a bite out of the worm! There's half a worm wiggling around now. That's disgusting."
"I'm just sick of all you banana eaters telling us what fruit we can and can't eat. This is just like Nazi Germany. I bet you'd ban apples if you could."

I don't watch Fox, other than the occasional episode of Red Eye. I'm a Jim Norton fan.

I don't care for the bias and infotainment, so I don't watch. See how that works? Getting mad about people that do is a waste of time.

And it kind of is an argument when you make exceptions for other organizations that engage in the same behaviors. It's a pretty strong one.

sebster wrote:
But one isn't simply uninformed or informed, they get from the former to the latter by watching and reading informative sources.

Sure, but if someone wants to be informed of something its pretty difficult to from preventing them from being so, what with the internet, print media, others new networks, etc. The point being that the survey doesn't so much indicate that Fox is preventing people from being informed, but that people who don't care about being informed are more likely to watch Fox; which is still an indictment of its journalistic caliber.

dogma wrote:I'd also say that its unlikely that Fox creates uninformed viewers, but instead that uninformed viewers tend to watch Fox.

That the ignorant firstly gravitate towards Fox News and then come away little better or or even worse informed is not exactly a great endorsement for a news channel.

I'm with Monster Rain. Except I watch the "The Five" because they really do crack me up

Jihadin wrote:I'm with Monster Rain. Except I watch the "The Five" because they really do crack me up

Man, thats the one segment I can't seem to watch..

Monster Rain wrote:I don't watch Fox, other than the occasional episode of Red Eye. I'm a Jim Norton fan.

I don't care for the bias and infotainment, so I don't watch. See how that works? Getting mad about people that do is a waste of time.

You can't just pretend that the things other people do don't affect society. They vote based on the nonsense FOX tells them. People need to recognise that people forming their political views based on lies is a problem.

And it kind of is an argument when you make exceptions for other organizations that engage in the same behaviors. It's a pretty strong one.

I'm not making an exception for other organisations. What are you talking about?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Sure, but if someone wants to be informed of something its pretty difficult to from preventing them from being so, what with the internet, print media, others new networks, etc. The point being that the survey doesn't so much indicate that Fox is preventing people from being informed, but that people who don't care about being informed are more likely to watch Fox; which is still an indictment of its journalistic caliber.

And that's exactly it. The enthusiasm of the golden age of information lasted about six minutes, before we discovered that given the choice, most people will choose to be informed by bs that reinforces how they like to percieve the world.

Alright, I'm back. Sebster seems to have covered some bases while I was gone, but I might as well respond.

Care to offer some quanitative analysis to back up your claim that fox intentionally lies or that they indeed get paid to do so?

It's virtually impossible from the standpoint of an unpaid civilian without the proper equipment to provide good quantitative analysis of a 24 hour news networks veracity in reporting. Thnkfully other people have done it for me!

The Project on Excellence in Journalism report in 2006[41] showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent. The "content analysis" portion of their 2005 report also concluded that "Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air."[45]

A 2010 Stanford University survey found "more exposure to Fox News was associated with more rejection of many mainstream scientists’ claims about global warming, [and] with less trust in scientists".[56] A 2011 Kaiser Family Foundation survey on U.S. misperceptions about health care reform similarly found that Fox News viewers scored lower for factual knowledge than other news viewers.[57] A 2010 Ohio State University study of public misperceptions about the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" found that viewers who relied on Fox News were 66% more likely to believed incorrect rumors than those with "low reliance" on Fox News

A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland School of Public Affairs, as published in the Winter 03-04 issue of the Political Science Quarterly,[59] reported that poll-based findings[60] indicated that viewers of Fox News, the Fox Broadcasting Company and local Fox affiliates were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three purported misperceptions:[59]
67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS).
The belief that "The U.S. has found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq" was held by 33% of Fox viewers and only 23% of CBS viewers, 19% for ABC, 20% for NBC, 20% for CNN and 11% for NPR/PBS
35% of Fox viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS)
In response, Fox News frequent guest Ann Coulter characterized the PIPA findings as "misperceptions of pointless liberal factoids" and called it a "hoax poll."[61] Bill O'Reilly called the study "absolute crap."[62] Roger Ailes referred to the study as "an old push poll."[63] James Taranto, editor of OpinionJournal.com, the Wall Street Journal's online editorial page, called the poll "pure propaganda."[64] PIPA issued a clarification on October 17, 2003, stating that "The findings were not meant to and cannot be used as a basis for making broad judgments about the general accuracy of the reporting of various networks or the general accuracy of the beliefs of those who get their news from those networks. Only a substantially more comprehensive study could undertake such broad research questions," and that the results of the poll show correlation, but do not prove causation.

Is that quantitative? It's difficult to measure the factual basis of reporting without setting up an office and vetting every single news story 24 hours a day. Such studies usually don't/can't last long.

As for intention.

Former Fox News producer Charlie Reina explained, "The roots of Fox News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the Bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it."[75][76]
Photocopied memos from John Moody instructed the network's on-air anchors and reporters to use positive language when discussing pro-life viewpoints, the Iraq war, and tax cuts, as well as requesting that the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal be put in context with the other violence in the area.[77] Such memos were reproduced for the film Outfoxed, which included Moody quotes such as, "The soldiers [seen on Fox in Iraq] in the foreground should be identified as 'sharpshooters,' not 'snipers,' which carries a negative connotation."
Two days after the 2006 election, The Huffington Post reported they had acquired a copy of a leaked internal memo from Mr. Moody that recommended: "…[L]et's be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress." Within hours of the memo's publication, Fox News anchor Martha McCallum, went on-air on the program The Live Desk with reports of Iraqi insurgents cheering the firing of Donald Rumsfeld and the results of the 2006 congressional election.[78][79]

As for money

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/goldline-execs-charged-fraud/story?id=14857253#.TsxnqWNrI0w

Don't for get to make sure you not only show that, but show they do so more than any other news network.

No thanks. Next you'll ask me to prove that the moon is big. It would be virtually impossible to show that fox news lies more then its competitors in a quantitative fashion. That would require accurately disseminating 72 hours of new broadcast per day while fact checking all of it and then comparing and contrasting. It would require an absolute and omniscient third party (god? Aliens?) to vet the veracity of subjective claims and it would require an immense staff of fact checkers for everything else. I have a laptop.

Back up your assertion or continue your rant, but realize that without backing it up you show yourself as a partisan hack.

Excuse me. I can't talk any more. I have to go drink my coolaid and go tape my eyes to Olbermans glorious chin so that my solar batteries which are very green can be recharged for another day of protesting from my tent camp in the suburbs of new hampshire.

sebster wrote:You can't just pretend that the things other people do don't affect society.

I don't. People vote for all kinds of idiotic reasons. The dumbassery of the voting public is one of the most frightening aspects of politics.

sebster wrote:I'm not making an exception for other organisations. What are you talking about?

You lace into Fox for doing the same things that other networks do, but allow for mitigating factors for the other networks. Do you not imagine that Fox might have a side to the story that you're telling?

Monster Rain wrote:The dumbassery of the voting public is one of the most frightening aspects of politics.

Unless you're on my side of the citizen/politician divide, then its awesome.

Monster Rain wrote:I don't. People vote for all kinds of idiotic reasons. The dumbassery of the voting public is one of the most frightening aspects of politics.

Then you must consider it bad that there's a media outlet out there that's making some people more poorly informed.

You lace into Fox for doing the same things that other networks do, but allow for mitigating factors for the other networks. Do you not imagine that Fox might have a side to the story that you're telling?

I haven't allowed mitigating factors for other networks. Any network that lied as regularly as FOX news should be condemned as readily as FOX is, but no network lies as regularly as FOX does.

sebster wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I don't. People vote for all kinds of idiotic reasons. The dumbassery of the voting public is one of the most frightening aspects of politics.

Then you must consider it bad that there's a media outlet out there that's making some people more poorly informed.
.

I'm more concerned with the fact that so many people are encouraged by their parents and schools to think critically, regardless of political affiliations.

Monster Rain wrote:

sebster wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I don't. People vote for all kinds of idiotic reasons. The dumbassery of the voting public is one of the most frightening aspects of politics.

Then you must consider it bad that there's a media outlet out there that's making some people more poorly informed.
.

I'm more concerned with the fact that so many people are encouraged by their parents and schools to think critically, regardless of political affiliations.

But for far too many people, here at least, watching Fox is their version of critical thinking!!

I hate my phone. That should say "aren't" encouraged to think critically.

Monster Rain wrote:I'm more concerned with the fact that so many people are encouraged by their parents and schools to think critically, regardless of political affiliations.

Sure, and if that didn't exist, the FOX news lying so much wouldn't be a problem. If it didn't exist, then the shoddy rubbish run on the other cable stations wouldn't be a problem either. But I don't think critical thinking is something we can just wish everyone to have, because it's really hard to do and most people are just going to say 'feth that' because it doesn't pay any better than being ignorant and self-satisfied. However, when the media is good, and provides straight, factual stories on things that actually matter, the general level of debate is raised no matter how shoddy and halfassed our critical thinking might be.

FOX news is a big problem, because it's shown not only that it's okay to pick a side and lie for it, but that it rates. MSNBC has decided it's going to do the same, but for the left wing (it won't work as well, because it's MSNBC, but still). I mean, you might have thought the tone of the debate was bad now, wait until you get another ten years of everyone following the FOX news model.