Biznox

It was an exaggeration, you're right of course.

I was just getting annoyed that people were comparing what FOX does to the New York Times and CNN. They simply aren't on the same scale when it comes to ethics and bias--- I think that fact holds true regardless of your political view. Just look critically at how they both operate. You don't have senior employees coming out of CNN telling of memos instructing them on what "message" to send for the day, for example. Any bias in those other alleged "liberal" media outlets is incidental compared to the systematic slanting of the news and crafting of a deliberate "message" that is the M.O. every day at FOX News.

The A.J. comparison was over the line though, I retract it.

oldmanatee

Some of you people scare me.

Sanjuro

Both Al-Jeezera and Fox news do one thing. Play to their target audience.

I have some pretty close ties to the 'media' and most of what Biznox has said is either right on the money or very close to the mark about Fox. NHGrafx hit the nail on the head though about the ownership issues. Keep in mind there has been a very carfully crafted society shift that has occured over the last decade because of the richest 2 percent that own the media and thier politics. The current media. tv, radio, etc has been well crafted. There really is no need to say more.

The real downfall of media started when we began to give a damn what the audience thought or who would be offended by the story. People simply change channels to one that doesnt offend. God forbid they not stay tuned in and buy the freakin 'Garden Weasil' when advertised and they lose an avertising dollar. Again, certain "news channels" have benefited grately from this American need to be coddled. Please see society shift above.

If while watching a news show, you find yourself agreeing or shouting "right on" to the TV more often than not, something is very wrong and you are only getting one side of an issue. News should upset, offend, comfort, and make you question. Not rally, choose sides, vilify and coddle.

zinczipper

... by now , we all , know the Prez. had the dam blown to flood out the poor and take their property and give it to his rich friends ........oh wait , that was New Orleans .

oldmanatee

Well, it worked once.......might as well try it again.

OMAC

I have yet to encounter any media outlet that does not try to interject opinion with their news. I for one like Fox News. What I really hate is the BBC. They are so far left they are scary. I can't understand how you can condemn Fox News for being guilty of interjecting opinion (they do) while not condemning anyone else...Oh wait, I know. You don't agree with Fox News or their politics so its okay to criticize them while overlooking it when your favorite media outlets do it for the Left. People like you make me sick.

oldmanatee

Well said OMAC!!!!! This whole "Freedom of Speech (unless I don't agree)" mess is sickening!

Most of the shows Fox News puts out are 'Opinion Driven" shows and if you can't tell, you might want to head back to Sesame Street....

qualityscion

Here is a very interesting article directly related to the subject:

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664


Please read....

Biznox

It's a matter of degree. I don't like any irresponsible news bias. Former FOX employees admit being told to deliver a certain "message" for the day. FOX basically acts as the PR department for the Republican party. Some other news outlets may have personalities than lean one way or the other, but none of the major ones I know about have a clearly defined agenda to promote a certain point of view in everything they do.

MSNBC leans right, but I'm not criticizing them here. Why? Because they don't have the blantant agenda that FOX does. There's a difference. BBC and CNN are among the highest quality news outlets there are out there and have journalistic credentials that carry weight. They were formed to deliver NEWS first. When opinion enters the picture its identified as such, the way real journalists operate. FOX was formed, by their own admission, as a reaction to the perceived "liberal media" so from the very beginning it wasn't a serious news operation, it was concieved as an outlet to deliver a certain point of view from the ground up.

If Michael Moore or Al Franken or another far left personality formed their own news organization with the purpose of countering FOX news, I wouldn't take it any more seriously than I do FOX.

Watching FOX as entertainment is cool. I watch it myself sometimes. All I'm saying is if you watch it as your only or primary source of news then you are drinking from a tainted well and every bit of information you get (or DON'T get) is going to be going through the filter or Ruppert Murdoch's idea or what the world should be.

Sure, watch FOX for the commentary, if you agree with them. They have great commentary. The problem is they don't understand the difference between commentary and NEWS and they present one as the other to deliberately mislead people.

WeDriveScions

Air America?

Agenda driven News/Talk organization?

English

Michael Moore did try to counter the Right...in the form of uneducated documentaries designed for the peasants of America

JustynTime

Dont mean to derail but the topic made me think of this giant bag of douche





"Ms. if you have a ***** your guilty" has to go. I'd love to shoot spaghetti on her.

djct_watt

Most of you guys are too caught up in it already. . . you argue as if it were a football game, but in reality, it ain't too far from the truth.

Biases and what-not aside, the bottom line is that ALL news media and corporations exist TO MAKE MONEY. Therefore they will appeal to that which makes money. No, they will not appeal to the average American. . . hell no. They will appeal to the average American who watches a lot of TV and prefers to watch the news. It has nothing to do with politics and corruption. . . it has to do with the simple economic and capitalist truth that news media's goal is TO MAKE MONEY. They don't have views/opinions except for profits and losses. Why do you think Fox recruited Geraldo Rivera? To lean further to the right? I don't think so.

Rooting for a particular side is semi-stupid. . . it's like trying to find out who wants to rip you off the least, when they all want to rip you off, but some are better than the others. Too bad that given the chance, they'd all cut for the big profits.

The same goes for political parties. . . why do you think Republican and Democratic views switch every 10-20 years? Do you think the Republican party will really stay conservative forever? No. It hasn't in the past by any measure, nor will it in the future. Political parties care about power and votes. Likewise, media only care about MONEY. Nobody in the news business has a benevolent agenda, nor do they really intend to help people. If they really meant well, they wouldn't be broadcasting for free. They want you to watch, so they can make some goddamn money.

It's ENTERTAINMENT. . . and they will appeal to whatever niche/market is profitable to them. This goes for ALL news and media. . . any business that doesn't follow this basic rule, would not stay in business (which is why honest reporting has gone the way of the dinosaur). We all want to be lied to. . . and that's the truth. We all want confirmation that we are right. How often do you check the sources that confirm your thoughts? Never. But you will ALWAYS second guess those who disagree with you. A truly balanced (and intelligent person) would check ALL sources.

oldmanatee

Well said djct.... but you still didn't answer why FOX hired Has-Been Grealdo..... and his brother, Uday.....

So far, we all agree that anyone that only gets their news from one type of source is worse than someone that doesn't listen to any news.


As for me, I think this dead horse has been beat enough...

djct_watt

It's a stab at the dark, since I'm not part of their management, but it's likely to help "balance" the whole conservative stigma they carry. Geraldo is a nice way to even out Bill O' Reilly

oldmanatee

Hillary Clinton and Jesse Jackson's love child couldn't balance out Billy O....

Biznox

Yes, absolutely.

If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I have no problem with opinion and commentary when it is clearly labeled as such.

I only have a problem when the lines between commentary/opinion and news are deliberately blurred. There is only one reason for doing that--- to subversively affect peoples opinions and viewpoints.

Air America doesn't pretend to be a hard news organization. Fox News does.

I'm not sure how much more clearly I can emphasize this point. Some people seem to be missing it still.

Biznox

Michael Moore is his own worst enemy. If he is guilty of anything, it's of letting his emotions get in the way of his objectivity and that means most of the time he winds up only preaching to the choir.

That said, "uneducated documentaries designed for peasants" don't win at Cannes.

There's nothing uneducated about Farenheight 9/11.

Probably the most amusing thing about the people who virulently criticize that film is NOT ONE of them that I've heard has even watched it in the first place. The vast majority are simple parrots repeating what they've been told by right wing ideologues.

A suggestion: At least see the film and attempt to have an open mind before you derride it as uneducated crap. Moore may be an overly emotional super-liberal, but he is also an extremely talented and earnest filmmaker regardless of your politics that is a fact.

The truth hurts and people react to that, particularly when it's critical of their side. Guess what. The Bushes are friendly with the Saudi royals and involved in the Carlyle Group. Bush did sit around and twiddle his thumbs before 9/11. He has spent more time on vacation than any president in modern history.

Regardless of your political views, if you can't see that Clinton was a vastly more intelligent man than Bush, you're delusional and beyond reason.

Let's compare: Getting a BJ in the oval office and a bad real estate deal decades ago VS. Starting a war in the middle east with a country that had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 based upon intelligence from ONE source, whom was labelled as questionable and failed a lie detector test.

Hmmm.. Which is worse do you think?

Anyone want to address those exact points, or will you handle it in the typical Republican style by side-stepping the indisputable FACT that Bush and the intelligence community knew that they had ONE source for the alleged WMD program and the guy was labeled as a liar by the CIA, yet THAT is the information we went to war on. Try to focus on that FACT instead of coming back with unrelated, irrelevant straw man arguments, if you can.

English

I actually did see the movie in theatres when it came out..thanks for asking. It was nothing but propaganda..did you not see that all of the people he interviewed for the movie were a bunch of broke ___ uneducated f***s?
Soldiers complaining that they got sent to war??? GIVE ME A FREAKIN BREAK!!!! What do they thing soldiers do?? Hang out and play spades?!!! Soldiers go to war=FACT.
What was up with him interviewing a state trooper?? What does that have to do with the current President? Nothing.
Mother mourns losing son (who was a soldier)...she shouldn't be _____ing she knew he was a soldier and with that comes the chance that you will go and fight and possibly die. Everyone knows that risk. If you don't want to go fight then don't enlist. You don't get paid crap anyways, you can make more money doing something else which doesn't have a risk of death.
You know stupid people really grind my gears. If I enlisted (which I won't) I would have the expectation that I will have to go fight and might die...shouldn't everyone else? My best friend is a Marine and he knew that he might go to war and that there was a chance of him dying, but he enlisted because that's what he wanted to do. He knew this because he has a brain. All the soldiers who complain about going to war or who are"conscientious objectors" are idiots and joined the military to be freeloading pieces of crap like people on welfare.
Liberals disgust me.
Don't you think it's beneficial for the President to be "in tight" with the Saudis??? I mean since they have a huge amout of oil that we need... Would you rather have a leader who didn't get along with the Saudis so that we would have MUCH higher oil prices?
Do you not see how war is good for the economy? Who do you think the government buys missiles and bombs and bullets and rifles, tanks, planes etc from? That's right AMERICAN companies. The companies then hire more people, and they also pay those people that work for them. Where do you think that money goes? That's right the employees spend that money, where? IN AMERICA. From there the companies where they spent the money hire more people and the cycle goes on. We're talking about BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of US Dollars getting injected into America's, and in turn the global economy. Don't forget soldiers get paid too, and more if they actually are deployed in a war zone. Also don't families get paid if their little soldier dies? They spend that money too.
I know it sounds cold hearted but that's the way the world is, get over it. I know if my friend died I would definately be upset, but Liberals tend to look at the small picture, open your eyes and look at the BIG picture.

For the soldiers who go waah waah:
soldier: One who serves in an army.
army: A large body of people organized and trained for land warfare.
warfare: The waging of war against an enemy; armed conflict.
war: A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

Also yes, Bill Clinton was obviously a smarter man, but are you really stupid enough to believe that the President makes a majority of the decisions??? Have you heard about something called a cabinet? No not the one in your kitchen, the President's cabinet. They advise him, aka tell him what to do. You think he chooses them by himself??? No way! You should be old enough to realize that you vote for a party, not for a person, and that the party has control over that person.
Party: An established political group organized to promote and support its principles and candidates for public office.
You vote for a party based on it's principles, not on who their "front man" is.
I'm getting a headache from other's ignorance.
I can rant all day about liberals
/rant
PS don't take this pwnage personally, I'm not calling you an idiot just going off at no one in particular, mainly the liberal point of view

djct_watt

Since when did we ever get to choose between Bush or Clinton? We had Al Gore and Bush. . . and yes, I would have rather had Gore than Bush. . . and I'm a Republican. Gore made a critical mistake that many past candidates have made. . . he "assumed" he was going to win. It isn't uncommon for the underdog candidate, with lower ratings, to win. In fact, it has happened to the upset of history many a time. Gore did not campaign as hard as he should have. . . and he paid for it. The margin was slim, even if he did really win, and it should never have been a slim margin in the first place. Bush, in turn, campaigned vigorously amoung Church groups and conservatives, encouraging people to litterally come by the bus load. What a great tactic. . . not that it makes him a fit leader either.

And guess what, they did it again with Kerry. . . who I think is a retard anyway (doesn't make Bush a good by any means either).

BIZNOX, you have made some points, but I don't see how any of them apply to the current situation. . . at all. OK, maybe if you compared Gore to Bush or even Kerry. . . but those are past elections which don't even matter anymore. Why not compare Bush to JFK or LBJ or FDR. Sure, Bush is a retard. . . I don't think many people are going to argue with you there. But comparing him to Clinton has no relevancy at all. . . to anything. . . except to push some kind of agenda or message.

English is right on about befriending the Saudi. . . would you rather we be enemies and wage war on them? I think not. . .

And on going to war. . . don't forget that Congress approved the war, by a large margin. . . I place an equal amount of blame on Congress. I had little faith in them to begin with.

Ok. . . Bush has spent a ton of time on vacation. . . point noted. And that's true. And that sucks. . . but like I said. . . bush is a retard!

Do you want to address problems. . . problems that we can fix? How about social security or health care reform? How about the totally screwed up primary and party system that CREATES these far extremist politicians that everyone hates (both left AND right). Bush was a douchebag. . . so was Kerry. I want REAL politicians who actually REPRESENT ME, but I can't get that when parties have to appeal to extremists to win the majority of their supporters (think about it, if you have a left half and a right half, you have to sit at about 1/4 far left and 1/4 far right to address the majority of your faction). We need representation that represents THE MIDDLE. . . but that can't exist.

All (left or right) extremists ever do is make it all the worse. . . for every Bush you will get a Michael Moore. . . for every Church going religious imposer we will get a hippie drug smoking college drop out. This is our system. It's time for reform. . . and personally I'm going to embody the change I want to see. I refuse to conform to extremism. There are Democratic views I agree with and Republican views I agree with as well. I lean towards the right, but I'll vote D anytime, so long as they are qualified. I am part of the new trend. . . the growing realization of those whom lie dead splat in the middle.

Thanks for reading.