Fox News

[redtreviso]

Reading Redtreviso's posts .

So, Fox is the only news organization that gets it wrong from time to time?




Should be easy to link to that.

I'll say it again... the committed left does not like alternate points of view. It's eliteist and close minded but then what's new?

pffffft...........................................................

 

[Anonymous]

pffffft...........................................................

Yep. I'm a little dumber now that I was a minute ago

 

[Anonymous]

i see.

i am not sure i agree with you on the bolded point. people enjoy having fox talking heads to rage against and make fun of. besides, if fox were to disappear tomorrow, some other news station would be hiring right leaning commentators to snap up fox's audience. so there really is no point in silencing fox.

Well, Fox is not only not going to be silenced it continues to take market share away from it's competitors.

 

[frenchfry]

It doesn't matter.

The open minded left would censor this in a millisecond if they could.

Fox ratings are... um, well let's just say there are a lot of people who watch Fox and I'm pretty sure this just drives the left bat shyt. That and it is a common theme on the left to think and believe everyone with an opposing view is an idiot.

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).

I don't consider myself left or right, I think both have some legitimate points of view and are out to lunch on others. I also haven't ever seen Fox news other than the clips on these forums. It is clear, however, that they are a bunch of clowns spouting garbage aimed at an audience of cretins.

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.

The comment about how a country can't be a democracy if the police aren't armed is an illustration of incredible ignorance. Sometimes I am really disappointed by the human race.

 

[redtreviso]

http://youtu.be/k89BMjzkThA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvRd1QYGcgM

church of the GOP

 

[titan_90]

 

[Thomsena]

http://youtu.be/k89BMjzkThA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvRd1QYGcgM

church of the GOP

I'm surprised that anyone would want to guest them in a debate when they are told to shut up like that. Made me angry just wathing that O'Reilly guy. What a tosser.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

My only problem with Fox News is that they use the word "News" in their name, when they're not news in the traditional manner. But as far as them having a conservative angle, so what? If people want to watch it as such, so be it.

Here's Stephen Colbert on O'Reilly. Definitely worth watching.

 

[Thomsena]

Here's Stephen Colbert on O'Reilly. Definitely worth watching.

Haha! That was brilliant.

 

[VeloCity]

So, Fox is the only news organization that gets it wrong from time to time?

Nope. But it's no coincidence that FoxNews viewers are - by their own responses to surveys - the most misinformed.

Should be easy to link to that.

Yep:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/09/25/roger-ailes-repositions-fox-news.htm

"Ailes has a blunt rejoinder to those who say he runs a biased outfit: “Every other network has given all their shows to liberals. We are the balance.”

I'll say it again... the committed left does not like alternate points of view. It's eliteist and close minded but then what's new?

You can say it all you want, but I think you're going to have a hard time convinving anyone that conservatives are more open to new ideas and are more tolerant than liberals. There's a good reason you're called "conservatives".

 

[usedtobefast]

Fox is a mouthpiece for the Republican party. nothing like it on the left at all.
"Fair and Balanced', really not so much with the choices they make. It is a Murdoch thing. just like William Randolph Hearst back in the day. "yellow journalism" once again.

 

[The Hitch]

Fox is a mouthpiece for the Republican party. nothing like it on the left at all.

The media was pretty behind Obama in 2008. Especially MSNBC. Sure they arent as anywhere near as stupid, nor is their coverage as cringeworthy , but they are, or at least were very biased to the guy they wanted to win in 08.

Take MSNBC, during the election 2 of their reporters got SUSPENDED for making crass jokes about Hilaries daughter.

Then at the Gop convention, the networks ****ing election TEAM, got demoted for sarcastically apologising to the viewers for having to watch one of the Republican videos. That election team was Chris Matthews - who tried to run as a senator for the Democrats, Olbermannm a left wing O reilly , who has even been put down by sympathiser John Stewart for absurd attacks on Chris Christie (those in the US can see the put down here) and Rachel Maddow, another Obama lover with a loud voice. Those 3 individuals, were the hosts of Hardball, Countdown and the Rachell Maddow show, the 3 big daily shows on the channel.

And it makes sence that the media is generally in favour of democrats. There have been studies into news networks here in the UK and they find that 80% of people working at the bbc for example is left wing.

Why? Because the people they employ fit your Democrat (in the US) demographic well. From the inner city (Democrats get most of their support from the inner cities, winning Washington DC for example 90-10 and carrying New york city usually 80-20) young people under 35 ( everyone knows they vote Democrat in their droves) and well educated (again a democrat base).

And all these people were especially enchanted by a young black candidate who promised to save the world.

There were many many little things for example that Saturday night live thing where they took the **** out of Hillary for many weeks and MCcain and didnt dare to touch Obama, until after lots of Hillary and Republican supporters complained, they made a little sketch about Obama.

In fact some of the people not in love with Obama began to make surveys about how many times late night comedians make jokes about Bush, Mccain, Hillary and Obama, and Obama wasnt getting a 10th of the jokes as the others because late night comedians didnt want to touch him.

There were also polls by Rasmussen- though I dont find these things reliable and i certainatly dont like them, where people were asked who the media has favoured and 55% said Obama, while 14% said Mccain

The news anchors themselves. I mean does anyone seriously believe Tom Browkaw would vote for Mccain Palin.

Also I remember Republicans getting pretty outraged that some networks, tried to ignore the Reverend Wright story for about 2 days after it "broke". MSNBC especially, who obviously didnt like a srtory that showed bad on their guy.

And Obama from the newspapers recieved way way way more endorsements than Mccain. I mean these guys are the ones writing the news and at the same time they are urging you to vote for a particular candidate.

I have no idea how it is now, I havent payed attention to US politics since 09 other than the 2010 mid terms which made me puke, but I know that in 2008, the vast majority of the media was behind Obama.

ANd perhaps most importantly, the left in the US has Hollywood. I think about half the stars from the movie business made the effort to organise press conferences to "endorse" Obama. Many of them in tears. They even did that little "yes we can" video where a bunch of them say those 3 words sheepishly into the camera.

And many of the hollywood films do come out left leaning.

More so in recent years. There have of course been many Conservative films, probably most of them before 2000, like Forrest Gump or the ones where US saves the world, or stupid ones like Enigma code where they say US cracked the code (it was Polish codebreakers ill have you know).

But in recent years, TV and movies have been all over the democrat messages.

The Simposns has episodes where the republican party meets in a Dracula castle, has an episode where Homer risks his life to stop some megafraud GOP ekection scam, has an episode where Simposns are sent to a the "ronald reagan detention facility" for accidentally mooning the US flag, plastered many episodes with "jokes" about how the 2004 election was allegedly rigged with some out of this world machine scam, (eg Homer tries to vote for Obama, but the machine instread votes for Mccain ,and when Homer complains the machine kills him). This conspiracy theory, was btw spread most strongly by Hollywood actors, including I remember during the 2004 election, on the post election Bill Maher show, that one from Thelma and Louise coming on and saying how she was going to fight the injustice of this stolen election.

Bill Maher btw is an example of a voice on the left. There are many shows like his too.

These mediums, Hollywoo, tv are watched by millions of people so yes the left in america does have a strong voice too.

 

[42x16ss]

Reading Redtreviso's posts .

So, Fox is the only news organization that gets it wrong from time to time?




Should be easy to link to that.

I'll say it again... the committed left does not like alternate points of view. It's eliteist and close minded but then what's new?

And the committed right does?

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....

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

The media was pretty behind Obama in 2008. Especially MSNBC. Sure they arent as anywhere near as stupid, nor is their coverage as cringeworthy , but they are, or at least were very biased to the guy they wanted to win in 08.

Generally agree on MSNBC, but only Olberman would have to be considered as absurdly left as someone like O'Reilly, Hannity, or most of the Fox "reporters" or "anchors".

Show us some clips of the rest of the bias you mention in the media, if you could. Something akin to what you'd see from Fox, but from a "liberal" point of view. And I don't mean something fringe. I'm hoping to see clips from a show like NBC Nightly News, 60 Minutes, etc.

Why? Because the people they employ fit your Democrat (in the US) demographic well. From the inner city (Democrats get most of their support from the inner cities, winning Washington DC for example 90-10 and carrying New york city usually 80-20) young people under 35 ( everyone knows they vote Democrat in their droves) and well educated (again a democrat base).

As someone who has worked in the media, in both a local and national market, I can tell you straight up that this old 'liberal media' adage is nonsense. Go to a company you work for, a business you know about. Now draw a line in the sand and put all the "liberals" on one side. And I don't mean their beliefs, I mean their actions. Is that how your business works? You would be quite surprised to find how many people either don't have much of an outwardly "liberal" or "conservative" view, as much as those that do. But also that both of these types - and I've worked with them, still approach their work with professionalism 99% of the time. Believe me, there are more than a few reporters who would love to call out Michelle Bachman on the nonsense she has said, but avoid doing so out of being accused of bias by people like yourself, regardless of what she is saying is factual or not.

I tell this to people all the time, and the general retort I usually get in return is clouded by their own personal bias going into the conversation. Often, that I'm either liberal or conservative thus don't see it, or it's hidden really well, or that Fox/MSNBC, etc. proves the media is liberal or "corporate", which transcends factual journalism reporting.

The news anchors themselves. I mean does anyone seriously believe Tom Brokaw would vote for Mccain Palin.

Therefore, the information he was reporting on was biased towards "liberals", the same way, say, Bill O'Reily is biased against against them? Do you really believe this?

Also I remember Republicans getting pretty outraged that some networks, tried to ignore the Reverend Wright story for about 2 days after it "broke". MSNBC especially, who obviously didnt like a srtory that showed bad on their guy.

The same way they ignored the Swift Boat Vets (who were mostly liars, and funded by extremely biased conservatives), or Monica Lewinsky story (broken by "liberal" New York Times), or the Welfare Queen story Reagan ran with (broken by the Times as well, and investigated by another "liberal" reporter, David Cay Johnston, then at the "liberal" LA Times). The same way over the last three decades the media was constantly reporting on the dwindling wages of the average worker and railing against the massive growth in the super wealthy (all but entirely ignored until just recently).

And Obama from the newspapers recieved way way way more endorsements than Mccain. I mean these guys are the ones writing the news and at the same time they are urging you to vote for a particular candidate.

This has gone on for decades and decades. Arguably the most "liberal" city in America, Portland, Oregon, their "liberal" newspaper, The Oregonian endorsed a significantly greater number of GOP presidential candidates than Democrats for the last century. Endorsements from the publisher are not the same as factual reporting from the staff.

Compounding that, regardless of what an editorial may state, does not extrapolate to content, certainly not on the same level that Fox News endorses GOP candidates across the board. It's laughable to compare these two.

I have no idea how it is now, I havent payed attention to US politics since 09 other than the 2010 mid terms which made me puke, but I know that in 2008, the vast majority of the media was behind Obama.

Again, let's see some links. I would like to see someone, anyone, validate such a claim by showing that an organization like Associated Press, Gannett, Knight Ridder, ABC/NBC/CBS News, etc. is "behind" a candidate. Let alone comparable in any way to how Fox News operates.

The media, by and large, reports on what is current, and flatly sells airtime/publications. If the masses were interested or intrigued in Obama more than McCain, they reported it as such. It's not the job of the media to count the seconds or words given to specific candidates equally. When we get to full campaign finance reform, we can discuss that at that time.

As to the claim of Hollywood's influence over the masses and their bias, that's about as meaningful as the claim of "Corporate" control over the media.

I've seen it from inside the walls, and out. I've been accused (including on this board) of being both liberal and conservative. And while I'm not a reporter, producer or journalist, I certainly know many of them, and know quite well how those jobs work. In well over 99% of the time bias or opinion plays almost no part, none.

 

[redtreviso]

The media was pretty behind Obama in 2008. Especially MSNBC. Sure they arent as anywhere near as stupid, nor is their coverage as cringeworthy , but they are, or at least were very biased to the guy they wanted to win in 08.

Take MSNBC, during the election 2 of their reporters got SUSPENDED for making crass jokes about Hilaries daughter.

Then at the Gop convention, the networks ****ing election TEAM, got demoted for sarcastically apologising to the viewers for having to watch one of the Republican videos. That election team was Chris Matthews - who tried to run as a senator for the Democrats, Olbermannm a left wing O reilly , who has even been put down by sympathiser John Stewart for absurd attacks on Chris Christie (those in the US can see the put down here) and Rachel Maddow, another Obama lover with a loud voice. Those 3 individuals, were the hosts of Hardball, Countdown and the Rachell Maddow show, the 3 big daily shows on the channel.

And it makes sence that the media is generally in favour of democrats. There have been studies into news networks here in the UK and they find that 80% of people working at the bbc for example is left wing.

Why? Because the people they employ fit your Democrat (in the US) demographic well. From the inner city (Democrats get most of their support from the inner cities, winning Washington DC for example 90-10 and carrying New york city usually 80-20) young people under 35 ( everyone knows they vote Democrat in their droves) and well educated (again a democrat base).

And all these people were especially enchanted by a young black candidate who promised to save the world.

There were many many little things for example that Saturday night live thing where they took the **** out of Hillary for many weeks and MCcain and didnt dare to touch Obama, until after lots of Hillary and Republican supporters complained, they made a little sketch about Obama.

In fact some of the people not in love with Obama began to make surveys about how many times late night comedians make jokes about Bush, Mccain, Hillary and Obama, and Obama wasnt getting a 10th of the jokes as the others because late night comedians didnt want to touch him.

There were also polls by Rasmussen- though I dont find these things reliable and i certainatly dont like them, where people were asked who the media has favoured and 55% said Obama, while 14% said Mccain

The news anchors themselves. I mean does anyone seriously believe Tom Browkaw would vote for Mccain Palin.

Also I remember Republicans getting pretty outraged that some networks, tried to ignore the Reverend Wright story for about 2 days after it "broke". MSNBC especially, who obviously didnt like a srtory that showed bad on their guy.

And Obama from the newspapers recieved way way way more endorsements than Mccain. I mean these guys are the ones writing the news and at the same time they are urging you to vote for a particular candidate.

I have no idea how it is now, I havent payed attention to US politics since 09 other than the 2010 mid terms which made me puke, but I know that in 2008, the vast majority of the media was behind Obama.

ANd perhaps most importantly, the left in the US has Hollywood. I think about half the stars from the movie business made the effort to organise press conferences to "endorse" Obama. Many of them in tears. They even did that little "yes we can" video where a bunch of them say those 3 words sheepishly into the camera.

And many of the hollywood films do come out left leaning.

More so in recent years. There have of course been many Conservative films, probably most of them before 2000, like Forrest Gump or the ones where US saves the world, or stupid ones like Enigma code where they say US cracked the code (it was Polish codebreakers ill have you know).

But in recent years, TV and movies have been all over the democrat messages.

The Simposns has episodes where the republican party meets in a Dracula castle, has an episode where Homer risks his life to stop some megafraud GOP ekection scam, has an episode where Simposns are sent to a the "ronald reagan detention facility" for accidentally mooning the US flag, plastered many episodes with "jokes" about how the 2004 election was allegedly rigged with some out of this world machine scam, (eg Homer tries to vote for Obama, but the machine instread votes for Mccain ,and when Homer complains the machine kills him). This conspiracy theory, was btw spread most strongly by Hollywood actors, including I remember during the 2004 election, on the post election Bill Maher show, that one from Thelma and Louise coming on and saying how she was going to fight the injustice of this stolen election.

Bill Maher btw is an example of a voice on the left. There are many shows like his too.

These mediums, Hollywoo, tv are watched by millions of people so yes the left in america does have a strong voice too.

Jeez second language issues? sloth? or something else??

Forest Gump a conservative film?? that's a stretch

""Also I remember Republicans getting pretty outraged that some networks, tried to ignore the Reverend Wright story for about 2 days after it "broke". MSNBC especially, who obviously didnt like a srtory that showed bad on their guy. ""

Because it wasn't a story

 

[The Hitch]

Generally agree on MSNBC, but only Olberman would have to be considered as absurdly left as someone like O'Reilly, Hannity, or most of the Fox "reporters" or "anchors".

Show us some clips of the rest of the bias you mention in the media, if you could. Something akin to what you'd see from Fox, but from a "liberal" point of view. And I don't mean something fringe. I'm hoping to see clips from a show like NBC Nightly News, 60 Minutes, etc. .

Before I read the rest of your post I should make a point as I think you have misunderstood me, at least from these 2 paragrpahs where you suggest I show stuff that is as bad as fox.

I am not defending Fox, nor am i suggesting that any of the institutions I mention are as bad as Fox.

I am responding to a post which said that the left has no mouthpiece. I am giving a list of institutions which are voices of the left or the American left anyway.

Whether they are as wrong, as stupid etc is irrelevant to my point.

My point is simply that they exist too.

Trust me, I cringe as much as you do when i see some of these clips from Fox, and I dont think much of what i have mentioned is in the same league as what they show on that channel. But its not like the Democrats sit totaly quiet wishing they had a voice.

They have their voices too. And while not as many idiots as Fox, they have a 1 or 2 loudmouths of their own.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

They have their voices too. And while not as many idiots as Fox, they have a 1 or 2 loudmouths of their own.

This part is certainly true.

What irks me is when people like Alies imply that Fox balances out the rest of the media - implying shows like NBC News or 60 Minutes, or someone like Scott Pelley is as biased, or even closed to biased, as Fox, or someone like O'Reilly.

 

[redtreviso]

 

[usedtobefast]

The media was pretty behind Obama in 2008. Especially MSNBC. Sure they arent as anywhere near as stupid, nor is their coverage as cringeworthy , but they are, or at least were very biased to the guy they wanted to win in 08.

Take MSNBC, during the election 2 of their reporters got SUSPENDED for making crass jokes about Hilaries daughter.

Then at the Gop convention, the networks ****ing election TEAM, got demoted for sarcastically apologising to the viewers for having to watch one of the Republican videos. That election team was Chris Matthews - who tried to run as a senator for the Democrats, Olbermannm a left wing O reilly , who has even been put down by sympathiser John Stewart for absurd attacks on Chris Christie (those in the US can see the put down here) and Rachel Maddow, another Obama lover with a loud voice. Those 3 individuals, were the hosts of Hardball, Countdown and the Rachell Maddow show, the 3 big daily shows on the channel.

And it makes sence that the media is generally in favour of democrats. There have been studies into news networks here in the UK and they find that 80% of people working at the bbc for example is left wing.

Why? Because the people they employ fit your Democrat (in the US) demographic well. From the inner city (Democrats get most of their support from the inner cities, winning Washington DC for example 90-10 and carrying New york city usually 80-20) young people under 35 ( everyone knows they vote Democrat in their droves) and well educated (again a democrat base).

And all these people were especially enchanted by a young black candidate who promised to save the world.

There were many many little things for example that Saturday night live thing where they took the **** out of Hillary for many weeks and MCcain and didnt dare to touch Obama, until after lots of Hillary and Republican supporters complained, they made a little sketch about Obama.

In fact some of the people not in love with Obama began to make surveys about how many times late night comedians make jokes about Bush, Mccain, Hillary and Obama, and Obama wasnt getting a 10th of the jokes as the others because late night comedians didnt want to touch him.

There were also polls by Rasmussen- though I dont find these things reliable and i certainatly dont like them, where people were asked who the media has favoured and 55% said Obama, while 14% said Mccain

The news anchors themselves. I mean does anyone seriously believe Tom Browkaw would vote for Mccain Palin.

Also I remember Republicans getting pretty outraged that some networks, tried to ignore the Reverend Wright story for about 2 days after it "broke". MSNBC especially, who obviously didnt like a srtory that showed bad on their guy.

And Obama from the newspapers recieved way way way more endorsements than Mccain. I mean these guys are the ones writing the news and at the same time they are urging you to vote for a particular candidate.

I have no idea how it is now, I havent payed attention to US politics since 09 other than the 2010 mid terms which made me puke, but I know that in 2008, the vast majority of the media was behind Obama.

ANd perhaps most importantly, the left in the US has Hollywood. I think about half the stars from the movie business made the effort to organise press conferences to "endorse" Obama. Many of them in tears. They even did that little "yes we can" video where a bunch of them say those 3 words sheepishly into the camera.

And many of the hollywood films do come out left leaning.

More so in recent years. There have of course been many Conservative films, probably most of them before 2000, like Forrest Gump or the ones where US saves the world, or stupid ones like Enigma code where they say US cracked the code (it was Polish codebreakers ill have you know).

But in recent years, TV and movies have been all over the democrat messages.

The Simposns has episodes where the republican party meets in a Dracula castle, has an episode where Homer risks his life to stop some megafraud GOP ekection scam, has an episode where Simposns are sent to a the "ronald reagan detention facility" for accidentally mooning the US flag, plastered many episodes with "jokes" about how the 2004 election was allegedly rigged with some out of this world machine scam, (eg Homer tries to vote for Obama, but the machine instread votes for Mccain ,and when Homer complains the machine kills him). This conspiracy theory, was btw spread most strongly by Hollywood actors, including I remember during the 2004 election, on the post election Bill Maher show, that one from Thelma and Louise coming on and saying how she was going to fight the injustice of this stolen election.

Bill Maher btw is an example of a voice on the left. There are many shows like his too.

These mediums, Hollywoo, tv are watched by millions of people so yes the left in america does have a strong voice too.

msnbc is not left wing really. just lightly left of center. Obama is a middle of the road guy as well. sorry Hitch you need to come here and get the view from occupyla or someplace. a lot of folks are now trying to align themselves with it and co-opt the movement. so far is being resisted. and the so called "official left" Hollywood? not so much. there are exceptions and true revolutionary's. most are just dilettantes. i work in Hollywood,fyi.

oh and Democrats are not left wing.

 

[richwagmn]

I could have been more clear. To the critics, I doubt there to be a distinction between the commentary and news reporting. They hate Fox because it challenges the decades long center-left spin of the traditional media, both broadcast and print.

I believe the committed leftists would silence Fox in a nanosecond.

I don't watch a lot of TV, but I tune in occasionally. Mostly for political stuff... Election coverage, debates... That sort of thing.

Objective criticism of Fox is fine and deserved. But how often does one see that?

And how often does one see ANYTHING on fox that's objective?

Fox news is an outrage machine. It's pure purpose is to energize the republican electorate. And everything it does is for that purpose.

Fox news deserves no respect as a new organization. It doesn't break any major news stories and the minor stories is does break are for the purpose of electing republicans.

 

[Arnout]

Jeez second language issues? sloth? or something else??

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

 

[Anonymous]

And how often does one see ANYTHING on fox that's objective?

Fox news is an outrage machine. It's pure purpose is to energize the republican electorate. And everything it does is for that purpose.

Fox news deserves no respect as a new organization. It doesn't break any major news stories and the minor stories is does break are for the purpose of electing republicans.

And how often does one see ANYTHING on fox that's objective?

Same could be said of MSNBC. So what?

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

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.

Fox news deserves no respect as a new organization.

Your opinion.

 

[krebs303]

Your view of Fox will depend on your political leanings. For many years I thought I was some kind of super conservative as my views seemed far to the right of what I saw and read in the media. Was I surprised when I took The Political Compass Test and found I am almost dead nuts in the center. I find the the news biased on both sides. I go to a variety of sources now including Al Jazerra in English. However it is my understanding that the Arabic and English versions differ quite a bit.
If you are getting your news from only one source you are probably not getting the full story.

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

 

[VeloCity]

100% dead wrong.

100% dead right.

In an email sent to the network's journalists during global climate talks in 2009, Sammon instructed news staff to cast doubt on established climate science. His directive came fifteen minutes after Fox reporter Wendell Goler had accurately reported on-air that the United Nations' World Meteorological Organization announced that 2000-2009 was "on track to be the warmest [decade] on record." Sammon's directive placed him at odds with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, not to mention News Corp honcho Rupert Murdoch.

During the height of the health care reform debate, Sammon sent an email to news staffers instructing them to avoid uses of the phrase "public option" and instead use variations of "government option" - language that had been recommended by Republican pollster Frank Luntz to turn public opinion against Democrats' reform efforts.

Shortly after President Obama's June 2009 speech in Cairo, Sammon sent an email to Fox's journalists pointing out that Obama did not use "the words 'terror,' 'terrorist' or 'terrorism.' " Sammon's criticism, however, was misleading. Obama devoted a significant section of his remarks to denouncing and confronting Al Qaeda and other "violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security." Nevertheless, the critique was repeated -- both by Sammon and other network personalities -- throughout the network's coverage of the speech.

Audio of a speech Sammon gave on a pricey cruise sponsored by a right-wing college, in which he admitted that when he repeatedly speculated on-air in 2008 "about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism," he was being "mischievous," because it was "a premise that privately [he] found rather far-fetched."

In the weeks leading up the 2008 election, Sammon used his position at the network to try to tie Obama to "Marxists" and "socialism," including sending an email to news staffers highlighting what he called Obama's "references to socialism, liberalism, Marxism and Marxists" in his 1995 autobiography Dreams From My Father. Sammon's motivation for engaging in this "mischievous speculation" is clear: he thought he could damage the Democratic candidate for president by insinuating he was a socialist right before the election. This is not something a journalist does - it's the action of a political operative.

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.

 

[Anonymous]

Your view of Fox will depend on your political leanings. For many years I thought I was some kind of super conservative as my views seemed far to the right of what I saw and read in the media. Was I surprised when I took The Political Compass Test and found I am almost dead nuts in the center. I find the the news biased on both sides. I go to a variety of sources now including Al Jazerra in English. However it is my understanding that the Arabic and English versions differ quite a bit.
If you are getting your news from only one source you are probably not getting the full story.

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

Here are my results;

Economic Left/Right: 0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.26

On the quadrant 'I'm about the same as Milton Friedman on the Social Libertarian/Authoritarian measure, but far less conservative (slightly right of the vertical center-line and a little below the horizontal line).

Pretty interesting.