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.

No you laid out nothing of import, except your personal bias. You're equating "conservative" with "worst." frankly its a little tiring.

You've yet to show why Fox is any worse than MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, or the freeking Food Network.

Mmmm, the Food Network.

Giada De Laurentiis, hottest woman on TV.

Oh my yes, forgot about her.

I was refferring to this:

However, YOU can help fix the problem. Find specific journalists and publications that do good work and read them, pay for them, write them letters, tell others about them, quote them...do whatever you can to support them. Yes, it is work, but its alot less work than trying to do all of the things that good journalists do for us.

Its hard to drop a single piece of information to prove what I'm saying, because the problem with Fox is their concistency. EVERY story gets twisted into unpleasent positions. I can't post every single video they have ever made. There is a whole movie about it called Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, which lays it out better than I can. but here is an example of the systematic way that fox ignores their responisbility to look at both sides of an issue (it is a tad melodramatic, since its part of a documentary and all, but try to ignore the music).



The only way to really describe why fox is bad is to watch a bunch of it. There is rarely a second,third, fourth etc... viewpoint to be had from it.

And I don't think you could make that argument about any other news organisation. At least not one worth mentioning

You just can't help yourself can you? You can't stop hating FOX long enough to objectively look at the situation and make a rational response. We criticize you for harping on FOX and ignoring any other network so what do you do, you harp on FOX more.

And you're an advocate for multi-viewpoint unbiased journalism? Lord help your industry.

The short answer is that Fox is ultimately driven by an old man with a political agenda. Rupert absolutely, positively has a political agenda, and he's great at marshalling his entire organization to further that agenda. Someday I'll share some News Corp stories.

Now, you could also place CNN squarely in that same category. Ted is still in charge there, right?

But is there a difference between say, ABC and Fox? Yes. ABC/Disney worships only the almighty dollar, not the gods of conservatism or liberalism.

Re: Giada, she's stunning until you get a profile view and realize her nose is kinda f'ed up. It really isn't a good nose.

gorgon wrote:Re: Giada, she's stunning until you get a profile view and realize her nose is kinda f'ed up. It really isn't a good nose.

...BLASPHEMER!

So what if her nose in profile isn't perfect. If you're getting hung up on that I really really pity you. She is a gorgeous woman who can ing cook beautiful Italian food like a bat out of hell. Her nose? Please.

gorgon wrote:The short answer is that Fox is ultimately driven by an old man with a political agenda. Rupert absolutely, positively has a political agenda, and he's great at marshalling his entire organization to further that agenda. Someday I'll share some News Corp stories.

Now, you could also place CNN squarely in that same category. Ted is still in charge there, right?

But is there a difference between say, ABC and Fox? Yes. ABC/Disney worships only the almighty dollar, not the gods of conservatism or liberalism.

Re: Giada, she's stunning until you get a profile view and realize her nose is kinda f'ed up. It really isn't a good nose.

Thats BS. They are all driven by deniro, either at the corp level or parent level (looks at GE contracts...)

Fox is no different, they just better at it.

Tyyr wrote:You just can't help yourself can you? You can't stop hating FOX long enough to objectively look at the situation and make a rational response. We criticize you for harping on FOX and ignoring any other network so what do you do, you harp on FOX more.

And you're an advocate for multi-viewpoint unbiased journalism? Lord help your industry.

What do you want me to do? Should I go through every single story by FOX, CNN, ABC and MSNBC in the last year and compile a comprehensive statistical analysis of...something?...perhaps how well informed the viewers of each channell are on important issues? I give you below.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php

I can't convince you that other networks don't show signs of bias, because they do. I can only try to impress upon you how dreadfully bad Fox is. It simply isn't journalism anymore.

nintendoeats wrote:

Tyyr wrote:You just can't help yourself can you? You can't stop hating FOX long enough to objectively look at the situation and make a rational response. We criticize you for harping on FOX and ignoring any other network so what do you do, you harp on FOX more.

And you're an advocate for multi-viewpoint unbiased journalism? Lord help your industry.

What do you want me to do? Should I go through every single story by FOX, CNN, ABC and MSNBC in the last year and compile a comprehensive statistical analysis of...something?...perhaps how well informed the viewers of each channell are on important issues? I give you below.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php

I can't convince you that other networks don't show signs of bias, because they do. I can only try to impress upon you how dreadfully bad Fox is. It simply isn't journalism anymore.

Yes. If you're going to make the claim that one and only one network is out there, then you need to put up or shut up with research. I thought thats what journalists were supposed to do?

gorgon wrote:
But is there a difference between say, ABC and Fox? Yes. ABC/Disney worships only the almighty dollar, not the gods of conservatism or liberalism.

While this is ture (and bad as long as people don't demand better journalism for their money) we still have the biases of their workers to contend with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

nintendoeats wrote:

Tyyr wrote:You just can't help yourself can you? You can't stop hating FOX long enough to objectively look at the situation and make a rational response. We criticize you for harping on FOX and ignoring any other network so what do you do, you harp on FOX more.

And you're an advocate for multi-viewpoint unbiased journalism? Lord help your industry.

What do you want me to do? Should I go through every single story by FOX, CNN, ABC and MSNBC in the last year and compile a comprehensive statistical analysis of...something?...perhaps how well informed the viewers of each channell are on important issues? I give you below.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php

I can't convince you that other networks don't show signs of bias, because they do. I can only try to impress upon you how dreadfully bad Fox is. It simply isn't journalism anymore.

Yes. If you're going to make the claim that one and only one network is out there, then you need to put up or shut up with research. I thought thats what journalists were supposed to do?

If only we demanded such high standards of all REAL journalists.

nintendoeats wrote:What do you want me to do? Should I go through every single story by FOX, CNN, ABC and MSNBC in the last year and compile a comprehensive statistical analysis of...something?

Yes, because that would actually be responsible journalism. Maybe not every single story but at least acknowledging that other networks and their pundits are biased and harping on them some as well. Right now all you've got is one big hate-on for FOX which works just fine if you wanna be a pundit. If you want to bitch about bias in the media how about focusing on the media instead of one little corner of it that you really don't agree with? You wanna talk about intellectual dishonesty? Start with yourself.

I can't convince you that other networks don't show signs of bias, because they do.

And yet everyone acknowledges the bias of FOX but you're still harping on them. So again, intellectual dishonesty. You say you can't convince us about the others because they show bias, well so does FOX.

I can only try to impress upon you how dreadfully bad Fox is. It simply isn't journalism anymore.

And neither is what you're doing. You're every bit as bad as O'Reilly or Beck right now.

@Tyyr: You ignored the part where I actually DID include a statistical analysis on news stations.

What exactly are you saying I am biased against? I hate fox...and I'm saying WHY I hate fox...and You're telling me I hate fox because I hate fox...

fox?

nintendoeats wrote:@Tyyr: You ignored the part where I actually DID include a statistical analysis on news stations.

You quoted a poll that surveyed the viewers of the news networks. You did nothing that speaks to your claim that the networks are biased. What you quoted shows that none of them do a particularly good job of informing people on one issue. Collect similar stats about a variety of issues and you'll have done something approaching journalism. Back that up with clips where the various news agencies mislead their viewers and that's journalism.

One poll about one issue and touting that as proof of a wide ranging issue does not equate to journalism, it's punditry.

What exactly are you saying I am biased against? I hate fox...and I'm saying WHY I hate fox...and You're telling me I hate fox because I hate fox...

fox?

No, I'm saying that you claim intellectual honesty and loathing of a wide ranging problem yet the only people you seem loathe are FOX when other networks are just as guilty. That smacks of intellectual dishonesty and a personal agenda. You can have your own agendas, but don't parade them around as intellectual honesty.

Tyyr wrote:
No, I'm saying that you claim intellectual honesty and loathing of a wide ranging problem yet the only people you seem loathe are FOX when other networks are just as guilty. That smacks of intellectual dishonesty and a personal agenda. You can have your own agendas, but don't parade them around as intellectual honesty.

AGH. How many times do I have to say it. Modern Journalism is in a bad way.

Fox is just EPIC bad.

I have no love for the majority of news organisations. If you really want me to put my nickle down, I generally like the CBC, BBC, Al Jazeera, NPR and the New York Times. But they are hardly perfect, I simply find them acceptably reliable.

We are still dealing with imperfect people here after all.

I have no love for the majority of news organisations. If you really want me to put my nickle down, I generally like the CBC, BBC, Al Jazeera, NPR and the New York Times. But they are hardly perfect, I simply find them acceptably reliable.

Why am I not surprised.

Frazzled wrote:

I have no love for the majority of news organisations. If you really want me to put my nickle down, I generally like the CBC, BBC, Al Jazeera, NPR and the New York Times. But they are hardly perfect, I simply find them acceptably reliable.

Why am I not surprised.

Is there anything that I could have said that would NOT have illicited that response?

Frax, I think it's because you don't regularly consume any of those news media, or compare them directly to Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc.

Fox is objectively worse at accurately reporting the news and at portraying multiple sides of an issue than other channels / news media. I'm dismayed at how bad CNN and MSNBC are, but actual studies show that Fox viewers are less informed and more ignorant about issues. Watch any of the above three and compare it to NPR or BBC, and you'll see a notable quality disparity. But Fox simply takes the cake.

The President's recent appearance at the GOP function was a classic example. Several channels ran it live and entire. Fox cut away almost as soon as the President began to give real answers to Republican criticisms. His germane and substantive responses did not fit Fox's narrative. You could try to argue that we can't prove WHY Fox did it, but the simple fact that they chose not to air the President's address meant that they were deliberately obstructing their viewers' awareness of the dialogue.

He cited a study and a documentary. It's not like there is no genuine evidence out there. You not looking it it =/=he has no basis for his opinion.

Frazzled wrote:Fox is no different, they just better at it.

Nope. Rupert is an unabashed supporter of conservative causes, and he uses his organization to further those causes. Of course News Corp exists to make money. But Rupert sees his org as more than a way to line his family's pockets. Tons have been written about Rupert's political activism...I don't know how this can even be debated.

But to be fair, it could be said that Turner's done the same kind of thing at CNN, just on the other side of the political spectrum. So the point I'm making here is that both sides do it.

And I stand by my statement that I don't see the same level of activism among the owners and presidents of the three other major networks.

P.S. For the love of God, don't bring up 60 Minutes and claim that shows CBS is in the bag for the Dems. The 60 Minutes gang aren't liberals, they're muckraking hacks. Someday I'll share a story about them too. When you see the raw footage of what they get in an interview and then what airs after they get done splicing and cutting and zooming, it's appalling to even claim it's journalism.

Tyyr wrote:So what if her nose in profile isn't perfect. If you're getting hung up on that I really really pity you. She is a gorgeous woman who can ing cook beautiful Italian food like a bat out of hell. Her nose? Please.

When it's a bad nose, it's a bad nose. I call it how I see it. I could care less about the cooking. I'm married already. It's not like I'm ever gonna eat her cooking. I'm watching to *ogle*. And when I try to ogle, I see the bad nose.

Ragnar your statement would have motre support if I weren't listening to NPR over the internet while reading the post

I listen to BBC and NPR in the morning. I listen to CNN on the radio when driving and occasionally a CNN live event before Congress etc. I don't read the NYT often because it makes my butt itch and MSNBC is just gak.

Note the lack of Fox. I listen to Fox News Sunday and O Reilly about twice a week (unless Beck is on). I look at the Fox news site, the CNN site, the local rag in both towns, and Wall Street Journal.

Again, you're making statements without support. Why is Fox objectively worse? Define worse at what in the first place. Proof people demonstrable defined proof is needed here. You are making the claim, not I.

it wasn't a study it was a poll. A documentary is the support? What is every other part of the documentary? Who paid to make the documentary? Come on I'm not going to make your case for you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nintendoeats wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

I have no love for the majority of news organisations. If you really want me to put my nickle down, I generally like the CBC, BBC, Al Jazeera, NPR and the New York Times. But they are hardly perfect, I simply find them acceptably reliable.

Why am I not surprised.

Is there anything that I could have said that would NOT have illicited that response?

If you had posted something besides government entities, NY Times and Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera???

Frazzled wrote:

I listen to BBC

Haha socialist !

Frazzled wrote:Ragnar your statement would have motre support if I weren't listening to NPR over the internet while reading the post

I listen to BBC and NPR in the morning. I listen to CNN on the radio when driving and occasionally a CNN live event before Congress etc. I don't read the NYT often because it makes my butt itch and MSNBC is just gak.

Note the lack of Fox. I listen to Fox News Sunday and O Reilly about twice a week (unless Beck is on). I look at the Fox news site, the CNN site, the local rag in both towns, and Wall Street Journal.

Again, you're making statements without support. Why is Fox objectively worse? Define worse at what in the first place. Proof people demonstrable defined proof is needed here. You are making the claim, not I.

it wasn't a study it was a poll. A documentary is the support? What is every other part of the documentary? Who paid to make the documentary? Come on I'm not going to make your case for you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nintendoeats wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

I have no love for the majority of news organisations. If you really want me to put my nickle down, I generally like the CBC, BBC, Al Jazeera, NPR and the New York Times. But they are hardly perfect, I simply find them acceptably reliable.

Why am I not surprised.

Is there anything that I could have said that would NOT have illicited that response?

If you had posted something besides government entities, NY Times and Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera???

I'm done with you Fraz. What the hell do you think a poll is? Its a method data collection...FOR STUDY.

Oh hell, I'm not playing "Name that Logical Fallacy" with your whole post. Nuts to you.

(P.S. Al Jazeera is as much a government entity as the others, because it is also funded by the Qatari government. However, unlike the CBC NPR and CBC, it shies away from dealing with local issues. This is defenitely my majour problem with it, because boy does Qatar have some local problems. Oh jeez, I'm trying to engage you again. DONE NOW.)

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

I listen to BBC

Haha socialist !

I prefer the term Godless Commie Pinko myself. Did you miss the shirt?

Fraz, good job.

One concrete example I gave was the difference between how Fox and other networks covered the President's talk at the GoP retreat in Baltimore. Do you perceive a difference there?

That being said, if you can't see the quality difference in what you're consuming, I can't tell why. Maybe it's just that you don't watch the standard Fox reporting.

I'm done with you Fraz. What the hell do you think a poll is? Its a method data collection...FOR STUDY.

Oh hell, I'm not playing "Name that Logical Fallacy" with your whole post. Nuts to you.

mmm...wow. Here's helpful advice. Take statistics classes. Learn how to manipulate polls. Its really fun.

Frazzled wrote:

I'm done with you Fraz. What the hell do you think a poll is? Its a method data collection...FOR STUDY.

Oh hell, I'm not playing "Name that Logical Fallacy" with your whole post. Nuts to you.

mmm...wow. Here's helpful advice. Take statistics classes. Learn how to manipulate polls. Its really fun.

Again with the phenominological arguments...oh damn it. I'm doing it again. I'm done witht his thread.

Mannahnin wrote:Fraz, good job.

One concrete example I gave was the difference between how Fox and other networks covered the President's talk at the GoP retreat in Baltimore. Do you perceive a difference there?

That being said, if you can't see the quality difference in what you're consuming, I can't tell why. Maybe it's just that you don't watch the standard Fox reporting.

Yea I can. Fox is biased hard right. that doesn't make it "worse" that makes it hard right. Much of their stories are sensationalist and geared to a conservative audience. Switch liberal for conservative and voila:

Just like MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, and NPR.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nintendoeats wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

I'm done with you Fraz. What the hell do you think a poll is? Its a method data collection...FOR STUDY.

Oh hell, I'm not playing "Name that Logical Fallacy" with your whole post. Nuts to you.

mmm...wow. Here's helpful advice. Take statistics classes. Learn how to manipulate polls. Its really fun.

Again with the phenominological arguments...oh damn it. I'm doing it again. I'm done witht his thread.

Sop what you're saying is you have no conception of polliong methods, sampling techniques to prove and point, purposes of polling, or the interesting concept of "push polling." Polling is an art form and can be quite fascinating.

Frazzled is just a grouchy old dude who hates Liberals...

Quiet you old fart. I seem to recollect you're older than me retiree boy.

Only by a little bit.

I saw a news article regarding competition between the Weather Channel (weather.com) and Accuweather. The similarity between that and News networks are quite striking.

Both the news networks and weather channel are selling the viewers something more than actual news. That's why reporters from the weather channel stands in the middle of a hurricane to shoot a story that is no more informative than just the actual data presented in a nice safe building hundreds of miles away.