Fox News

[Anonymous]

100% dead right.


http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103290020

Bill Sammon is Fox News' VP - not the VP for Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly's show, or any of the opinion shows, but the actual "fair and balanced" news division. Imagine if the head of MSNBC was sending emails instructing the news division to use language taken from a pollster for the Dems? Conservative heads would be exploding all over the country.

And not to mention that Roger Ailes was a political consultant for Republican candidates for nearly 30 years.

So what?


If you believe Murdoch would lose money at Fox in order to put forth a point of view then you are naive.

Conservative heads would be exploding all over the country.

Conservatives view much of the "news" delivered by traditional media as bias. Again, so what?

Ailes has tapped into a feeling that people had not been being told the whole story and the rest is history.

There are plenty of choices out there that should make you feel warm and fuzzy. If Fox isn't your thing then it's real easy not to watch.

 

[krebs303]

I like pics

 

[Race Radio]

Fox has reached absurd levels of parody, even Ailes has realized this and has said he is moving closer to the center. I find Fox, Obermen, Bill Maher, etc painful to watch. Unfortunately it is increasingly challenging to shift through the dogma and talking points

If you are interested in generally unbiased news with a slight Conservative bent the Economist is a great read. http://www.economist.com/

If you are interested in a review of the media's coverage of the news Reliable Sources is a good, balanced review.

 

[gregod]

Fox has reached absurd levels of parody, even Ailes has realized this and has said he is moving closer to the center. I find Fox, Obermen, Bill Maher, etc painful to watch. Unfortunately it is increasingly challenging to shift through the dogma and talking points

If you are interested in generally unbiased news with a slight Conservative bent the Economist is a great read. http://www.economist.com/

If you are interested in a review of the media's coverage of the news Reliable Sources is a good, balanced review.

as a long time subscriber, agreed on the economist. however, the editorial page does occasionally veer into cloud cuckoo land. it is as if one or two of the editors don't read the reporting in their own newspaper.

 

[Race Radio]

as a long time subscriber, agreed on the economist. however, the editorial page does occasionally veer into cloud cuckoo land. it is as if one or two of the editors don't read the reporting in their own newspaper.

Agreed. To be honest I usually skip that page.

 

[VeloCity]

So what?

You're the one who said that Fox wasn't pushing the GOP view. Clearly they are.

Conservatives view much of the "news" delivered by traditional media as bias.

Yeah, it has been well established that truth does have a liberal bias. I feel for ya.

Ailes has tapped into a feeling that people had not been being told the whole story.

They're sure not getting the whole story from Fox News.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...university-study-fox-viewers-more-misinformed

"It was not a matter of partisan self-selection. Democrats who watched Fox, as well as Republicans, came away misled and misinformed."

There are plenty of choices out there that should make you feel warm and fuzzy. If Fox isn't your thing then it's real easy not to watch.

I don't watch it. I like real news.

 

[redtreviso]

 

[Fus087]

Take the test it might surprise you.
I'm just in the quadrant with Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandella

Economic Left/Right: -7.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.51

Economically, no surprise. I'm staunchly left also by European standards.
Socially, I am surprised I am that libertarian, although it makes sense when I think about it.
So I'm a mixture of Gandhi, Mandela and the Dalai Lama - could be worse.

 

[Anonymous]

You're the one who said that Fox wasn't pushing the GOP view. Clearly they are.

Yeah, it has been well established that truth does have a liberal bias. I feel for ya.

They're sure not getting the whole story from Fox News.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...university-study-fox-viewers-more-misinformed

"It was not a matter of partisan self-selection. Democrats who watched Fox, as well as Republicans, came away misled and misinformed."

I don't watch it. I like real news.

You're the one who said that Fox wasn't pushing the GOP view. Clearly they are.

Now would be a good time to clean your glasses. I never said that.

Yeah, it has been well established that truth does have a liberal bias.

How clever. In your next breath you'll tell me the Bush top marginal tax cuts reduced revenue to the Treasury.

They're sure not getting the whole story from Fox News.

Nobody is getting the whole story from any one source.

"It was not a matter of partisan self-selection. Democrats who watched Fox, as well as Republicans, came away misled and misinformed."

Just keep mis-underestimating all those Fox viewers.

I don't watch it.

Yet you are an expert on the subject.

 

[aphronesis]

100% dead wrong. Fox is there to put a product in the marketplace that makes money. Ailes did his homework and now his project is (commercially) crushing their competition.


Your opinion.

How are the above strictly opposed? Isn't it a product that serves precisely to energize and continually redefine a certain demographic? Particularly given your next comment that argues that Fox should be understood as a valid news institution? If it's not news in the more traditional sense of being strictly factual and unbiased, then it must be playing to particular interests. Else it wouldn't be crushing the competition.

 

[VeloCity]

Now would be a good time to clean your glasses. I never said that.

richwagmn:It's pure purpose is to energize the republican electorate. And everything it does is for that purpose.
scott socal:100% dead wrong.
velocity: You're the one who said that Fox wasn't pushing the GOP view.
scott socal: I never said that.

In your next breath you'll tell me the Bush top marginal tax cuts reduced revenue to the Treasury.

No need for me to when your own side does it just fine:

"Revenue is lower than it would be without the Bush tax cuts - liberal and conservative economists are in accord on this question." - Alan D Viard of the (very pro-business and very conservative) American Enterprise Institute.

Granted, the Bush tax cuts weren't the primary reason for the spiraling deficit during the Bush years as some claim, but that they didn't reduce revenues is something one might learn from watching Fox.

Nobody is getting the whole story from any one source.

True. But the other networks at least aim for some semblance of accuracy and balance. As we see from the responses to that UMaryland survey, viewers of Fox don't get the story because they aren't getting the story.

Just keep mis-underestimating all those Fox viewers.

Can't say that I'm all that concerned that I'm mis-underestimating Fox viewers.

Yet you are an expert on the subject.

Just for future reference, when does expert opinion matter and when does it not? Like if we were to talk about, oh I don't know let's say "climate change", would expert opinion matter?

 

[Anonymous]

richwagmn:It's pure purpose is to energize the republican electorate. And everything it does is for that purpose.
scott socal:100% dead wrong.
velocity: You're the one who said that Fox wasn't pushing the GOP view.
scott socal: I never said that.

No need for me to when your own side does it just fine:

"Revenue is lower than it would be without the Bush tax cuts - liberal and conservative economists are in accord on this question." - Alan D Viard of the (very pro-business and very conservative) American Enterprise Institute.

Granted, the Bush tax cuts weren't the primary reason for the spiraling deficit during the Bush years as some claim, but that they didn't reduce revenues is something one might learn from watching Fox.

True. But the other networks at least aim for some semblance of accuracy and balance. As we see from the responses to that UMaryland survey, viewers of Fox don't get the story because they aren't getting the story.

Can't say that I'm all that concerned that I'm mis-underestimating Fox viewers.

Just for future reference, when does expert opinion matter and when does it not? Like if we were to talk about, oh I don't know let's say "climate change", would expert opinion matter?

richwagmn:It's pure purpose is to energize the republican electorate. And everything it does is for that purpose.
scott socal:100% dead wrong.
velocity: You're the one who said that Fox wasn't pushing the GOP view.
scott socal: I never said that.

And?

richwagmn:It's pure purpose is to energize the republican electorate. And everything it does is for that purpose.

No. It's pure purpose is to put a product on the air that makes a profit via advertising spends. And everything it does is for that purpose.

velocity: You're the one who said that Fox wasn't pushing the GOP view.

I never said that.

"Revenue is lower than it would be without the Bush tax cuts - liberal and conservative economists are in accord on this question." - Alan D Viard of the (very pro-business and very conservative) American Enterprise Institute.

Well, this is in direct conflict with actual IRS data, so who's lying?

but that they didn't reduce revenues is something one might learn from watching Fox.

Go check the data. Compare top marginal revenue, AGI and percentage of AGI, compare it to Clinton years and let me know what you find.

Can't say that I'm all that concerned that I'm mis-underestimating Fox viewers.

Glad to hear.

Just for future reference, when does expert opinion matter and when does it not? Like if we were to talk about, oh I don't know let's say "climate change", would expert opinion matter?

I'm a natural skeptic and don't like to be spun. The climate change stuff doesn't pass my smell test, but I'll admit that I'm taking another look. Expert opinions are bought and sold every day. When possible I like to find out for myself. Like the lie that's going on right now with taxes. Warren Buffet might be held as an expert and yet he lies his *** off when he says he pays less in taxes than his secretary (by any measure).

 

[redtreviso]

Well, this is in direct conflict with actual IRS data, so who's lying?

I'm a natural skeptic and don't like to be spun. The climate change stuff doesn't pass my smell test, but I'll admit that I'm taking another look. Expert opinions are bought and sold every day. When possible I like to find out for myself.

except by the CATO and Heritage *&^%$ Tanks.. Do you ever actually listen to these people that you hold their opinions so dear? They should do tests on them for Syphilis or brain parasites. They spin to the point of molecular breakdown. Their definition of "THINKING" is arguing..You could say "the sun will rise tomorrow" and they'd go to work preparing a presentation to be done by a senior fellow on cspan saying that it definitely will not. It is their job.

""When possible I like to find out for myself."" bwahhhhhhaaaaa

 

[Anonymous]

except by the CATO and Heritage *&^%$ Tanks.. Do you ever actually listen to these people that you hold their opinions so dear? They should do tests on them for Syphilis or brain parasites. They spin to the point of molecular breakdown. Their definition of "THINKING" is arguing..You could say "the sun will rise tomorrow" and they'd go to work preparing a presentation to be done by a senior fellow on cspan saying that it definitely will not. It is their job.

""When possible I like to find out for myself."" bwahhhhhhaaaaa

Behold. The pinnacle of Objectivity has now spoken.

 

[The Cobra]

BTW, most of the "left leaning" in the USA would barely be centre in most parts of the world. In the USA most of the world's "left leaning" populace would be burned at the stake as communists....

+1

I occasionally watch the O'Rielly factor for pure entertainment value. Surely no one takes this seriously?? I say that speaking as a conservative (by British standards). The O'Rielly factor wouldn't last two minutes over here, he'd be ripped to shreds! Its programs like this that form the impression in the rest of the world that Americans are stupid.

 

[redtreviso]

Behold. The pinnacle of Objectivity has now spoken.

A great philosopher once told me.. "50 mile an hour motorcycle 25 mile an hour brain"

 

[Anonymous]

+1

I occasionally watch the O'Rielly factor for pure entertainment value. Surely no one takes this seriously?? I say that speaking as a conservative (by British standards). The O'Rielly factor wouldn't last two minutes over here, he'd be ripped to shreds! Its programs like this that form the impression in the rest of the world that Americans are stupid.

Is that your impression?

 

[Thomsena]

Is that your impression?

It is. Yes.

 

[Le breton]

In defense of Daniel Mermet (Là-bas si j'y suis)

This comment isn't totally unjustified, and the left leaning population's certainty that they are walking some kind of moral higher ground is somewhat irritating (especially in France where the left politicians are just as corrupt as the right, if not more so).
.........
Interesting enough I feel the same way about a radio show on France Inter called "la bas si j'y suis" which is animated by a pseudo left wing journalist and appeals to a lot of the government assisted "victim" class. The total opposite on the political spectrum compared to Fox news, but in it's own way a bunch of clowns spouting garbage aimed at an audience of cretins. Virtually no attempt at objectivity, and lots of manipulation of information to make a point.

........

There are many ways to measure corruption, however, if you restrict it to the use of political office for personal monetary/financial gain the right seems to have done worse in the last, say, 30 years (we are talking about France).

Now for the second paragraph above : I often get irritated by Daniel Mermet ( I used to listen to him regularly when he had the 5-6 pm slot, less so now on the 3-4 pm slot) and turn him off.

For you people who do not listen to France-inter, most days he starts with a selection of messages left on his answering machine by his listeners. Considering that he is seen as left-leaning ( rightly so as far as I can tell) people who call in do it most of the time (I guess, messages are selected) to complain - often bitterly - about the current government, banks, finance, you name it.

Occasionnally you also hear the ranting of the opposite side about those left-wing complainers and against Daniel Mermet himself.

If I catch his program after that answering machine part, the content is often quite interesting although he does clearly give a preference to views from the left. The people he interviews tend to be knowledgeable and make sense. A comparison with the idiotic Fox news programs is therefore totally absurd.

Considering that his programme is only 5 hours a week out of 168 hours, giving 10 or 15 minutes to his audience to spill out their guts is not too big a price to pay to have a quality radio station. You get the distinct impression that those people never get a chance to be listened to, only on those 10-15 minutes per day.

Now I don't know if you consider Daniel Mermet to be a pseudo journalist or a pseudo leftist, but I have heard him speaking from India and from many other places in the world (Bolivia, Lebanon, Cuba ...) where he was doing what seemed to be a rather good job talking to the common people as well as more influential ones.

Of course Daniel Mermet goes balistic whenever the topic is BHL (Bernard-Henri Levy), but that's another story.

Your assessment a bunch of clowns spouting garbage aimed at an audience of cretins. Virtually no attempt at objectivity, and lots of manipulation of information to make a point. may occasionnally be accurate, but he also digs out topics that don't get aired anywhere else. On the whole I would give him passing grades and i would be thrilled to meet him in person.

 

[VeloCity]

btw, what "liberal media"?

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2116/me...ial-race-barack-obama-rick--perry-herman-cain

"One man running for president has suffered the most unrelentingly negative treatment of all: Barack Obama. Though covered largely as president rather than a candidate, negative assessments of Obama have outweighed positive by a ratio of almost 4-to-1. The assessments of the president in the media were substantially more negative than positive in every one of the 23 weeks studied. In no week during these five months was more than 10% of the coverage about the President positive in tone."

 

[Anonymous]

It is. Yes.

That's unfortunate.

 

[Anonymous]

btw, what "liberal media"?

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2116/me...ial-race-barack-obama-rick--perry-herman-cain

"One man running for president has suffered the most unrelentingly negative treatment of all: Barack Obama. Though covered largely as president rather than a candidate, negative assessments of Obama have outweighed positive by a ratio of almost 4-to-1. The assessments of the president in the media were substantially more negative than positive in every one of the 23 weeks studied. In no week during these five months was more than 10% of the coverage about the President positive in tone."

I wonder what that might have looked like leading up to the 2008 election.

It's my opinion that Obama has earned most of his recent negatives... and a much of the negative is emanating from the left.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/us/politics/democrats-in-congress-balking-at-obamas-jobs-bill.html?_r=1&hp

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/19/liberals-vow-challenge-obama-democratic-primaries/

 

[redtreviso]

I wonder what that might have looked like leading up to the 2008 election.

It's my opinion that Obama has earned most of his recent negatives... and a much of the negative is emanating from the left.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/19/liberals-vow-challenge-obama-democratic-primaries/

Your opinion at work again scott? Moonie Times?

baaaa baaaa baaaa

 

[Anonymous]

baaaa baaaa baaaa

Do I bring out the best in you or what?

 

[The Hitch]

Not everyone is American and uses the word organize instead of organise. Doesn't mean its wrong...

lol.

OWNED!!.

At first I assumed I had made a lot of typos in my comment. But after reading what you said I realized that 60% was not wrong at all and another 30% was misspelling of names.

It is such an irony to see someone who spends his whole life attacking other Americans for being to pro American, turn his attacks to foreigners for not using American spellings ( ie not being sufficiently pro American).

Oh the irony.