Fox "news"

Political discussions of any type are welcome here. All we ask is that you try to respect everyone's views, and that you use facts to back up any claims that you make.

Moderators: BarbaraSher, Tituba

Re: Fox "news"

Postby DJCNOR » Wed May 13, 2009 2:06 am

I've run across several bits on FOX's Brit news in the last few days that seem twisted to try to affect current controversies in the US. One was a story that was headlined something like "The last Titanic survivor lives in England. See how the NHS is trying to finish off the job!" which I thought was pretty disingenuous. Hey! She's the very last survivor! Apparently, the NHS has been doing a better job of keeping her alive than the US's health system did for any of the US survivors! This morning, one headline involves the expense accounts of Parliamentarians of Britains most liberal main party, the Liberal Democrats. The headline is something like "Liberal Democrats charge expenses for elaborate homes!", when according to Brit news, the expense abuses of the Liberal Democrats are very very minor compared to those of the two more conservative parties, none involving property profits, and the one receiving the most coverage merely a trouser press. Another headline features "NHS failings in the Baby P case" in which an abused child eventually died. You'd think the NHS gave the baby bad medical treatment. None such. Actually, what went wrong as far as the NHS was concerned was that the baby was taken to a variety of different medical facilities and those medical facilities didn't adequately communicate with each other to catch just how often the child was needing medical care, and actually, catching such a thing is far easier in a one-payer universal care system than otherwise. Donna
DJCNOR
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:10 pm

Re: Fox "news"

Postby merk » Wed May 13, 2009 10:07 am

I'm not surprised. I heard a bit about the expenses charged by people in parliament (the local npr station here airs the bbc news for one hour in the morning). I only heard part of it but they didnt mention anything about one particular group spending more or less then another group. From what i heard it sounded like it didn't follow any party lines or anything like that.
User avatar
merk
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 1999 10:01 pm
Location: Pasadena, CA

Re: Fox "news"

Postby BarbaraSher » Mon May 18, 2009 1:04 pm

Scenario Thinker wrote:I heard something interesting that made me think ... in this overly PC and EO world, the media in general is fairly liberal, so it makes Fox News look ultra conservative. I'm not a big news network person, so don't really have a feel for it, but I do agree we are in ultra PC and EO overdrive. I see it all the time in the working world.
Oh, SC, you gotta see that station. It's not relative right-wing propaganda, it's absolute right-wing propaganda (no matter how jcjm tries to muddy the waters). There's a book called "What Liberal Media?" from a few years ago when it was The Nation & Jon Stewart. Then Colbert and Olbermann opened and Rachel Maddow joined up just a little while ago. There's still almost nothing else. Even the NYTimes isn't really liberal, and never was. It printed the lies about WDM in Iraq (Judith Miller (?)) without concern for the facts, and helped us get into that neocon mess. In 1967 I was in the big anti-Vietnam march in NY city, standing in our own 'tributary' line, about 100 feet back in a side street, counting the rows of people 10 across who marched past before it was our turn to move in behind them. I started counting about 2 hours after they began marching into Central Park because I was beginning to realize how many people were marching and was amazed. I wanted to estimate roughly how many people went past me. I had a stopwatch and saw that the rows of people left my vision (which was framed by the side of a building) at about the rate of 1 every 4+ seconds, that's 10 adults every 4 or 5 seconds who moved in front of me. The parade went past me for another 4 hours. (Remember, I started 2 hours after the beginning.) Then we joined it and after we got into the bandshell area, the parade continued to arrive for over two more hours. You do the math. The New York Times, which I had always loved and trusted, estimated a total of 20,000 people in the protest march. I stopped subscribing then. What a wakeup call. Of course, I don't base my case on just that one piece of evidence. The media, for the most part, just goes where the power is.
BarbaraSher
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 6181
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 1999 10:01 pm

Re: Fox "news"

Postby JeannetteLS » Mon May 18, 2009 2:11 pm

Now MSNBC has "The Ed Show." I read "The Powers That Be" by Halberstom (sp?) when I was in my early thirties and I started really thinking about the media, government, big business and how they all seemed to get wound up together with the advent of t.v. Kennedy opened that door big time, but even then I remember my parents bemoaning the idea that the media was forever being called "liberal." And since the Reagan era, it felt as if, when his people cried "The media is liberal," that was enough for people simply to agree and say it was so. Clinton was to the right of center in many things, but he was called a liberal. I think our vision of what a liberal had moved so far to the center that many do not even remember what that was--it became a word people seemed to say "I'm not a liberal or anything, but..." There was nowhere on television or the mainstream outlets where we could get the articles that decried the run up to the Iraqi war. People believed the "fair and balanced" farce of Fox news through most of the Bush administration, without question. From an historical perspective, the news media have moved to the right for years, and with multi-media conglomerates like Rupert Murdoch's, it is very hard to know what is a balanced view any more. There are very few international bureaus--many share information from foreign sources. Fox and MSNBC really don't seem like news stations at all. They do political coverage from the perspectives of whichever hosts are on. But news? Le Monde is pretty liberal and one can get that in an English version. I think there is some paper out of Great Britain that takes all the liberal stories published world-wide during a week and prints them in a weekly paper. The Guardian? And The Nation. There are liberal blogs like Salon.com, and Huffington Post. But truly, what else is there that offers the TRUE liberal perspective on a variety of issues? Not Time Magazine or Newsweek, that's for sure... Not CNN. Bill Moyers Journal offers some liberal coverage of weekly issues. Any other sources?
JeannetteLS
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 421
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 7:40 am
Location: CT

Re: Fox "news"

Postby merk » Mon May 18, 2009 4:03 pm

IMHO, the far right labels anything liberal that doesn't agree with them. Which automatically brands them as 'bad' since to the far right, liberal is tantamount to saying someone is the devil. It seems me it's a tactic they use to try and discredit anyone who has an opposing opinion. Please note i say far right - because i think most people who would consider them selves conservative, are not far right. I think most people realize that just because someone disagrees with them about what is the best way to run the country, doesn't mean they are devil worshippers who want the country to fail. but if you listen to any of the extreme right wingers that are on tv or the radio, they routinely accuse people of wanting the country to fail/loose if they disagree with their view points. I've been discussing various issues via email with someone for several weeks now who is a conservative. It took me a while to become convinced of it, simply because i dont like thinking someone is that self-deceiving, but people can be amazingly self-deceiving. When presented with evidence contrary to his beliefs, he'd find any excuse at all to dismiss it. And when he'd find a tiny shred of evidence to support his beliefs, it was like he found a mountain of evidence even though it was barely a mole hill. This person repeatedly claimed they were open minded and wanted to know the truth, and early on i believed this. But towards the end it became apparent to me that 'being opened minded' was just a phrase that sounded nice. In reality he was only looking for things to support his beliefs and rejected everything else. I think a lot of people are like this. Sometimes it seems like this country as a whole is getting more like this. But i think that could just be because that's just how the media is portraying this. If the average person is 'boring' - they dont hold particularly radical opinions, they dont spout off non-sense - chances are you'll never see them on tv. The media is only going to cover the people who say or do outrageous things. And then the rest of us are left with the impression that this is how the country is because that's all we see in the media. I happen to think fox is more biased then any of the other news networks. fox is the only place i've seen have conservative guest speakers who had to actually speak out against fox because their nonsense was just so ridiculous. I haven't really seen that happen on a 'liberal' news show. The bias i have seen in the other direction seems to occur when they are confronted by something coming more from the extreme right. And i wouldn't call their reaction biased - i'd just call it a somewhat unprofessional reaction - basically they lost their cool. Ok, i'm going to get off my soap box now. I rambled on long enough.
User avatar
merk
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 1999 10:01 pm
Location: Pasadena, CA

Re: Fox "news"

Postby JeannetteLS » Tue May 19, 2009 4:55 am

I'm not even at the center... I am pretty far left, but I DO feel as if, now that President Obama is in office, Democrats are often as snarky as the arrogant neo-cons that have driven me nuts for a couple of decades. It's just different. Rachel Maddow does not report the news! Sometimes I agree with her position, but she trots on people who already agree with her, just as any right wing proponent does. She and Keith Oberman have the tone of voice and the four-syllable vocabularies they love to strut, that have brought on the criticism of intellectualism and conceit toward liberals, that we've listened to for DECADES. So I really can't say we do not have our far left wing nuts who do not, probably ADD real information to a discussion. I have yet to hear more than an occasional actual revelation that I had not read or heard elsewhere. The difference is, MSNBC also has Morning Joe. There is a morning show three hours long that has people shouting and discussing and disagreeing from several sides of an issue, very often. THAT is political discourse during which one can sometimes actually hear some fresh perspectives. Do I agree with Joe and the conservatives? NO. Do they make me think? More often than not, yes. I don't watch the show if I want to be disengaged in the morning--I watch "Third Watch" instead. Fox News has NO liberal perspective offered during the day, to counterbalance the right, do they? Am I mistaken? The farthest left they get is sort of at the center. They say they are a news station. MSNBC calls itself "The place for politics." They ALSO have some news coverage, but they do not attach the label of "Fair and Balanced." There is too much demonizing from both sides, I think. We just have different codes for doing that. Joe Scarborough this morning articulately talked about why he feels the Energy Package is a longterm good thing and felt that this is where government subsidies of some sort to defray increased costs, are GOOD. He talked about the conservative stance that LONGTERM economic growth and health and "conservation" of resources protect the country. He surprises me, just when I've got my slipper poised at the t.v. and his head! Discourse. We need it.
JeannetteLS
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 421
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 7:40 am
Location: CT

Re: Fox "news"

Postby jcjm » Tue May 19, 2009 10:39 am

There is a difference between news and comentary. A lot of people list things that are commentrary as news shows and some aren't even commentary they are entertainment. For example Rush Limbaugh is classified as an entertainer, so are Jon Stewart and Colbert. Commentary and entertainment have no intention of being unbiased. News does. So, if you are looking at unbiased news, you have to compare Fox to NBC, CBS and ABC, not to Jon Stewart or Colbert. That is comparing news to entertainment, not news to news.
jcjm
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 1600
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2002 10:01 pm

Re: Fox "news"

Postby JeannetteLS » Tue May 19, 2009 10:47 am

I would think we need to compare Fox more to MSNBC and CNN--the 24 hour "news" stations. The networks run news, but ABC, NBC, and CBS are not news channels. But that's splitting hairs. Good point about Limbaugh, Colbert, and Stuart. I have never understood how people could say they got all their news from Jon. He does telling commentary within entertainment, but it is NOT news. Can't be objective about the right or the wrong, and I know that, but it's a good point I think, about being sure we are on the same page with comparing apples to apples.
JeannetteLS
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 421
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 7:40 am
Location: CT

Re: Fox "news"

Postby merk » Tue May 19, 2009 10:50 am

the sad thing is, there are many times where colbert or stewert do a better job informing people then the news does. Something stewert does that i wish the news would do - i've seen him several times show a clip of someone saying 'i never did/said XYZ' and then he'll play a clip of them from the past saying/doing XYZ. The 'news' never does this. limbaugh might be an entertainer, but i think most of the people who listen to him consider him to be more then just an entertainer. I've certainly never heard of anyone who seriously listens to his show refer to him as that. And considering how much of a voice he has inside the GOP, i dont think you can really call him just an entertainer.
User avatar
merk
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 1999 10:01 pm
Location: Pasadena, CA

Re: Fox "news"

Postby jcjm » Tue May 19, 2009 10:59 am

I didn't classify Limbaugh as an entertainer, he did when he accepted an award for Most Influential Entertainer a couple of weeks ago. As far as Colbert and Stewart, they are comedians. Getting your news from them is kind of like getting your news from Weekend Update on SNL. They may show true clips, but the punch line is always behind the bit, not reporting fact.
jcjm
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 1600
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2002 10:01 pm

Re: Fox "news"

Postby merk » Tue May 19, 2009 11:09 am

you are splitting hairs now when you tell me you didnt classify limbaugh as an entertainer. Just because he accepted an award doesn't mean that's what he is. And just because stewert and colbert are comedians doesn't make them incapable of informing people. There's no rule that says news cant be delivered with a punchline. I wouldn't rely on them as the sole source of news - but they do in fact report news at least in part. As i pointed out with my example, in some cases they report things other news shows do not. I would love if the news wouldn't just report on what people said but would actually point out when they are lying. That's real news.
User avatar
merk
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 1999 10:01 pm
Location: Pasadena, CA

Re: Fox "news"

Postby jcjm » Tue May 19, 2009 11:36 am

I don't think it is splitting hairs to put Walter Cronkite and Rush Limbaugh in different categories. They were both top in their field, but the field was different. Just because people who can't think for themselves hang on Rush's every word and say "ditto" to everything, doesn't make him a newscaster. I can see the difference.
jcjm
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 1600
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2002 10:01 pm

Re: Fox "news"

Postby merk » Tue May 19, 2009 11:46 am

jcjm - rush might entertain people. thereby making him an entertainer, but he also informs people. I'm not saying that i personally consider him a good source of info, but other people do. You calling him an entertainer just dismisses the actual impact he has. I think it would be more apt to say rush SHOULD BE an entertainer, but in fact he's more then just an entertainer (unfortunately). Just like stewert and colbert might amuse people making them comedians, they also inform people. So they are more then just comedians.
User avatar
merk
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 1999 10:01 pm
Location: Pasadena, CA

Re: Fox "news"

Postby jcjm » Tue May 19, 2009 11:54 am

They would like people to think they are relevant, but to me , elevating them to anything other than entertainer, detracts from people who actually report the news. While I can't really think of anyone who currently could compare with Walter Cronkite or even Tom Browkaw, but even Dan Rather was a far cry from Limbaugh or Colbert.
Last edited by jcjm on Tue May 19, 2009 12:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jcjm
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 1600
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2002 10:01 pm

Re: Fox "news"

Postby merk » Tue May 19, 2009 11:58 am

jcjm - i'm not saying i consider them relevant. But just because you and I dont consider rush relevant doesn't change the fact that a lot of people do. A lot of people listen to what he says and believe what he says. Just because you and I don't like that, doesn't make it untrue. Just because i say he is a source of news, doesn't mean i endorse him as a news source. It doesn't mean i think he reports correct or truthfully. It may be distasteful to both of us, but he is more then just an entertainer. That's just a (unpleasant) fact.
User avatar
merk
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 1999 10:01 pm
Location: Pasadena, CA

PreviousNext

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest