PDA

View Full Version : News Organizations and Political Bias


GarfieldJL
06-11-2007, 06:17 PM
Split from 'Endings For a (Potential) Darfur Diplomatic Simulation' thread. --Jae


No news from them should be trusted.



I have yet to see someone give a valid reason not to trust Fox News, I've seen and provided ample evidence against CBS when I've said they can't be trusted.

mimartin
06-11-2007, 07:18 PM
I have yet to see someone give a valid reason not to trust Fox News, I've seen and provided ample evidence against CBS when I've said they can't be trusted.

Why does every thread turn into which media branch distorts the fact the least (or most)? CBS made a mistake. They also got rid of the persons responsible for the mistake. Why can’t they be trusted now? The producer and Mike Wallace are gone. I’d hardly call that ample, but if you feel one mistake is enough to make CBS untrustworthy for entirety I’ll give a few reported by Fox News fair and balanced reporting:

1. 2005 Fox News identifies a known terrorist home; the only problem was the terrorist had not owned the home for over three years. They even posted direction to the home on the website. The family was harassed and demanded a public apology. Instead of doing it on Fox News, Fox issued a statement through the LA Times.

2. Fox labels Mark Foley as a Democrat during a report. Not once, but three different times. I believe they should of known the Republican Rep. from Florida who severed in the house from 1995 until he was forced to resign in 2006. Seem they were trying to keep the family values on the Republican side and steer the mid-term elections that way or at least minimize the damage. (Sounds a little like CBS).

3. Ran tape of House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers of Michigan while talking about indicted Rep. William J. Jefferson.

Personally I watch Fox News about the same amount of time that I watch CNN and more than I watch NBC. They all make mistakes and there is nothing fair and balanced about Fox News. It is strongly slanted to the right and when someone from the left is on they do everything in their power to intimidate that person. My views are more to the center and I’d like a news program that reported the all the facts fairly without showing preference to either side. That is not the definition of Fox News, but Fox New is entertaining and I compare it more to a sitcom than an actual News Channel.

Taking a commentary from any one source is not safe. It is a ways better to verify the story from more than one news agency. Then make your own decision, so personally I do not trust any of them at face value. My main problem is Fox News tells me enough to get my blood boiling, but when I check the facts they’ve only told me the worst part of the story and nothing about the other side. What they said was true, it just wasn’t the entire truth.

GarfieldJL
06-11-2007, 07:43 PM
Why does every thread turn into which media branch distorts the fact the least (or most)? CBS made a mistake. They also got rid of the persons responsible for the mistake. Why can’t they be trusted now? The producer and Mike Wallace are gone. I’d hardly call that ample, but if you feel one mistake is enough to make CBS untrustworthy for entirety I’ll give a few reported by Fox News fair and balanced reporting:


That went beyond making a mistake, that went into slandering a sitting President of the United States, President Bush could have pressed charges.


1. 2005 Fox News identifies a known terrorist home; the only problem was the terrorist had not owned the home for over three years. They even posted direction to the home on the website. The family was harassed and demanded a public apology. Instead of doing it on Fox News, Fox issued a statement through the LA Times.


Can you provide a source for that cause I never actually saw that, though technically it was the truth though if true it should have been mentioned that the terrorist no longer owned the home.


2. Fox labels Mark Foley as a Democrat during a report. Not once, but three different times. I believe they should of known the Republican Rep. from Florida who severed in the house from 1995 until he was forced to resign in 2006. Seem they were trying to keep the family values on the Republican side and steer the mid-term elections that way or at least minimize the damage. (Sounds a little like CBS).


I don't remember calling him a Democrat, and I watched Fox News report it, saying Foley was a Republican...


3. Ran tape of House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers of Michigan while talking about indicted Rep. William J. Jefferson.


You mean this John Conyers? http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/12/griffin.conyers/

And this William J. Jefferson?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196517,00.html
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/j/william_j_jefferson/index.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jefferson9jun09,1,5387002.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true


Personally I watch Fox News about the same amount of time that I watch CNN and more than I watch NBC. They all make mistakes and there is nothing fair and balanced about Fox News. It is strongly slanted to the right and when someone from the left is on they do everything in their power to intimidate that person. My views are more to the center and I’d like a news program that reported the all the facts fairly without showing preference to either side. That is not the definition of Fox News, but Fox New is entertaining and I compare it more to a sitcom than an actual News Channel.


There is a difference between making mistakes and incompetitence and/or slander. As far as humor, Fox News usually tries to incorporate some humor in their news broadcasts so that people have something to laugh about after hearing an hour's worth of depressing stories.


Taking a commentary from any one source is not safe. It is a ways better to verify the story from more than one news agency. Then make your own decision, so personally I do not trust any of them at face value. My main problem is Fox News tells me enough to get my blood boiling, but when I check the facts they’ve only told me the worst part of the story and nothing about the other side. What they said was true, it just wasn’t the entire truth.

I usually use more than one source online, TV is generally harder because of the fact that most cable television news programs get their news stories from the New York Times which is the most liberal paper in the country. So in television ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and CBS all will have similar stories because they used the same source. I'm not sure if CNN uses the New York Times, and I don't think Fox News does either.


Back to topic, there is no way in my mind that there will be a diplomatic solution. It's going to have to be a military one, however the US is too busy with Afghanistan and Iraq + potentially Iran to deal with Darfur at the moment. Otherwise Bush would have probably launched an invasion by now to end the situation in Darfur, typical cowboy diplomacy.

To set the facts straight, the United states has no interest in econmically in Sudan we've had a trade embargo on Sudan for quite a while. If there is a vote to intervene in Darfur, the United States would have no reason to vote no.

Nancy Allen``
06-11-2007, 08:09 PM
How many times has the weather been not as reported? We should press charges.

mimartin
06-11-2007, 09:25 PM
That went beyond making a mistake, that went into slandering a sitting President of the United States, President Bush could have pressed charges.

Against who could Bush press charges? Against the people CBS fired, CBS or the person that defrauded them into believing his forged documents? How is it slander on CBS part? They were deceived and ran a story without gather all the facts under the belief by a longtime producer and report that the story was true. Once the truth was found out, they fired the same longtime and loyal employees.

Can you provide a source for that cause I never actually saw that, though technically it was the truth though if true it should have been mentioned that the terrorist no longer owned the home.

It was the no longer the truth when you draw the people a map to the so-called terrorist house. I still hope there is a belief in this country that we are all innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Source (http://www.regrettheerror.com/2005/08/fox_pundits_mis.html)
Fox News did not fire the reporter. This is not a simple mistake as police had to set up special protection for the family.

Conyers (http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2007-06-05-fox-news-blunder_N.htm)
Your link about Conyers still does not dimiss Fox News mistake.

According to Fox News Foley Changed Party (http://www.democrats.com/node/10241)

Screen shot on Page (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/04/bill-oreilly-labels-rep-foley-a-democrat/)

If there is a vote to intervene in Darfur, the United States would have no reason to vote no.

Why should the US vote no if we are not sending troops as peacekeepers? No, Bush should skip his usual 2 month vacation in Crawford this summer and use the time and what remaining power and integrity the office of the Presidency affords him and the power the US has remaining in the world to achieve a collation to resolve this issue. You are right there will not be a diplomatic solution without troops, but with proper leadership we could get those troops without using American soldiers.

GarfieldJL
06-11-2007, 09:30 PM
I doubt democrats.com is a reputible source when it comes to Fox News....

mimartin
06-11-2007, 09:38 PM
I doubt democrats.com is a reputible source when it comes to Fox News....
No doubt and I never said it was, but the screen shot is true and that is all I wanted to show you. I saw it live on the air so I know Fox did this. You can also find it at about 50 places on the internet without the screen shot.

True_Avery
06-11-2007, 09:52 PM
Can you provide a source for that cause I never actually saw that, though technically it was the truth though if true it should have been mentioned that the terrorist no longer owned the home.
It was not true. The "terrorist" had not been in the home for years, and Fox gave DIRECTIONS to the house that was taken down by the police some time later. If Fox News wasn't sure or you don't know, that happens to be illigal.
http://www.regrettheerror.com/2005/08/fox_pundits_mis.html
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/08/26/17626381.php?show_comments=1

You mean this John Conyers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2qRUAMWIyE

I don't remember calling him a Democrat, and I watched Fox News report it, saying Foley was a Republican...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_vtC98IFoA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wffOhr9zo6o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnIgRyN3uHA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mbkz5AdlgtI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTGVFn5sYW8

Fox Attacks Black America:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY04gIruZ4E&mode=related&search=

Keith Olbermann shows O'Reilly mistake on Nazi history:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AyF7_oN9kk

I have more, but I can see right now that you are too far gone as a kool aid drinker to have any of this seep in.

GarfieldJL
06-11-2007, 09:54 PM
No doubt and I never said it was, but the screen shot is true and that is all I wanted to show you. I saw it live on the air so I know Fox did this. You can also find it at about 50 places on the internet without the screen shot.

http://www.democrats.com/node/10241

Uh Fox News uses a different color and font size on the little ticker that scrolls along the bottom of the page. The screenshot given in your link has a yellow font color, Fox News uses blue.

Furthermore True_Avery was kind enough to provide this, if you listen through the audio you'll find Ann Coulter talking about the Democrats bringing up Mark Foley.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mbkz5AdlgtI

Then MSNBC and Fox News don't exactly get along, I mean a really vicious bloodfeud situation. If some guns were thrown into the mix there'd probably be a shootout before the day was out...

mimartin
06-11-2007, 10:19 PM
http://www.democrats.com/node/10241

Uh Fox News uses a different color and font size on the little ticker that scrolls along the bottom of the page. The screenshot given in your link has a yellow font color, Fox News uses blue.

It looks yellow in the actual clips that True_Avery just posted. Maybe Fox News changed font color since last year. When talking they either referred to him as a republican or a congressman, all I am talking about is how the labeled him on the picture which was as a Democrat.

I'm not saying Fox News is terrible (like I said before I watch it too), but they are just as imperfect as the rest of us. The media tries their best to get the story fast and get it correct. Those two things are just incompatible sometimes and they all make mistakes. Fox News is not immune to this and neither is any other news agency. Personally I like looking at all sources of news including TV, radio and print and then making a decision. When it comes to politics neither side is wrong all the time, but they are not right all the time either. If Fox News is your preferred source then there is nothing wrong with that. It is about whom you are the most comfortable with and trust the most. I just hope you understand no person or organization is perfect and we all make mistakes.

GarfieldJL
06-11-2007, 10:23 PM
There was two things actually about the font, the font was too large in proportion to the screen, and the font was the wrong color. However in one of the things submitted Ann Coulter spells out the fact Mark Foley was a Republican. I'm not saying Fox News is perfect, they do make mistakes, however some of the mistakes people say they make are actually made up. As shown with Ann Coulter's statements.

Windu Chi
06-11-2007, 10:24 PM
I have yet to see someone give a valid reason not to trust Fox News, I've seen and provided ample evidence against CBS when I've said they can't be trusted.
Look, man I really don't trust no news organizations, 100%.
But Fox News bias, is obvious, GarfieldJL.
They obviously only appeal to Republicans.
Everybody should notice that when they watch that news channel. :)

GarfieldJL
06-11-2007, 10:36 PM
Look, man I really don't trust no news organizations, 100%.
But Fox News bias, is obvious, GarfieldJL.
They obviously only appeal to Republicans.
Everybody should notice that when they watch that news channel. :)


The UCLA survey showed they did have a slight conservative leaning, however they were in the top 5 closest to center. They were also 1 of 2 media sources out of 20 that were not politically biased to the Left.

Windu Chi
06-12-2007, 12:27 AM
The UCLA survey showed they did have a slight conservative leaning,

A slight conservative leaning! :lol:
What hell are they talking about?
They have fallen over to the conservative side, fully.

however they were in the top 5 closest to center. They were also 1 of 2 media sources out of 20 that were not politically biased to the Left.
Of course, they wasn't politically biased to the left. :lol:

About this left-wing media business.
I don't trust no media, period. :)

Jae Onasi
06-12-2007, 01:32 AM
Split from the Darfur thread since it had totally derailed that thread. This is THE hot place for all your News Organization Bias discussions. :)

John Galt
06-12-2007, 01:33 AM
No media agency is unbiased, because you'll never find a person completely absent of preconcieved notions. Part of this is simply due to connections to certain business/political/religious interrests and the subconscious effects of cultural conditioning; Slashdot.org news tends to be biased towards high tech interrests, as it is run by bloggers. All the major television networks seem (to me) to have a distinct bias towards the internet, as web news is quickly becoming a viable alternative to traditional newspaper and television media. Of course, this mostly effects individual reporters/media staff. For example, could Nancy Pelosi's daughter(who actually is a reporter) be a truly unbiased spectator on political events?

In short, everything that you or I hear from ANY information outlet must be taken with a grain of salt, because everyone, no matter how fair-and-balanced they may claim to be, has an axe to grind.

Darth InSidious
06-12-2007, 08:19 AM
The one to really be careful of is the BBC news. Why? Because their bias is so insidious that if you aren't looking you can miss it.

As Totenkopf said, no-one is trustworthy in the world of news.

SilentScope001
06-12-2007, 08:40 AM
The only unbiased news source I have ever seen was Crossfire.

In it, 2 Democrats and two Republicans screamed at each other. Hearing two different biased stories allows you to see the world in a better light, combining the two biases together into one unbiased view.

It got cancelled by CNN, due to lower ratings. I guess people like biased news after all.

Mike Windu
06-12-2007, 08:58 AM
Bahahha. This thread makes me laugh. "This can't be true!" "Why not?" "The font's different!"

Anyway, I use CNN and the Daily Show.

John Galt
06-12-2007, 09:45 AM
The only unbiased news source I have ever seen was Crossfire.

In it, 2 Democrats and two Republicans screamed at each other. Hearing two different biased stories allows you to see the world in a better light, combining the two biases together into one unbiased view.

It got cancelled by CNN, due to lower ratings. I guess people like biased news after all.

People generally like to hear what they want to hear. Elsewise, why did Sean Hannity get his own show, apart from the one with Alan Colmes, on Fox?

Pavlos
06-12-2007, 12:35 PM
Read a range of newspapers and watch a large variety of news channels, I'd say is your best way of getting reasonably unbiased view of what is going on in the world, regardless of what political alignment you cling to :).

I actually happen to have a copy of The Guardian right next to me now... and for some reason Boris Johnson has written a column in it. That and The New Statesman and The Independent suit my political ideals but I also force myself through The Times and The Torygraph to make sure I'm not blind to the other end of the spectrum :). Plus, I think the cultural and philosophical columns in The Telegraph are well done - even if I don't agree with half of what it says.

Darth InSidious
06-12-2007, 02:38 PM
The Torygraph to make sure I'm not blind to the other end of the spectrum :). Plus, I think the cultural and philosophical columns in The Telegraph are well done - even if I don't agree with half of what it says.
Provided the columns in question aren't by Bryony Brainless, I'd agree with that, if not the appellation Torygraph. In line with the Conservative party, perhaps, but not Tory.

mimartin
06-12-2007, 03:42 PM
The UCLA survey showed they did have a slight conservative leaning, however they were in the top 5 closest to center. They were also 1 of 2 media sources out of 20 that were not politically biased to the Left.

One survey does not mean anything, has anybody else taken another sample and gotten the same results? What was the sample size and are you sure it was not taken at the last Republican National Convention?

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with Fox News, but there is no way that I can watch that program and not find it slanted strongly to the right. If Fox News is down the middle then Rush Limbaugh is a liberal.

Fox New fills a niche for those that want there news tilted more to the right and people must want that for Fox News to stay on the air.

Are you talking about this UCLA study?

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

If so it only says that “Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.” It is not talking about Fox News entire body of work, but only this program.

“The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.” According to the 2005 study these shows where more balanced than the Brit Hume program.

Then study goes on to say “The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center…” That says to me t“Special Report with Brit Hume is closer to center, but is not saying the same for the rest of Fox News.

Windu Chi
06-12-2007, 04:04 PM
Anyway, I use CNN and the Daily Show.
C SPAN maybe!
I look at the Washington Journal: A news program where viewers call in and give their opinions on the day's news topics, the reporter at the desk talk's about.
It airs 6am CT/7pm ET!

GarfieldJL
06-12-2007, 06:59 PM
The UCLA study did not include opinion segments which are clearly labeled in Fox News broadcasts as such. They only covered what was reported news wise. Commentators like Chris Mathews from MSNBC's Hardball, O'Reilly of The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News, Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes from Hannity and Colmes on Fox News all were not included in the study because they are commentators.

The reason I find Fox News to be generally more trustworthy is actually quite simple.

The "mainstream" media is pretty much entirely slanted to the political left. Going to just list American Journalism sources not going to bother listing what was actually surveyed just going to provide a summary so people get the jest, I've included the link to the study in this post. http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

Left Wing Bias:
MSNBC
NBC
ABC
CBS
NPR
CNN -- Some of their programming is extremely close to center.
New York Times
Washington Post
Drudge Report -- Was close to center too
Wall Street Journal
LA Times
USA Today
US News and World Report
Newsweek

Right Wing Bias
Fox News -- Was rather close to center
Washington Times

Because of this disparity, and the apparent dislike to outright hatred towards Fox News due to its success, the mainstream media would like nothing better than to bash Fox News. True Avery was kind enough to provide some evidence that proves this. Did they go after Dan Rather concerning memogate oddly enough MSNBC and NBC both remained totally silent. So Fox News has a bunch of people waiting to pounce on any mistake they make, as shown by True Avery. However the only media outlet that I know of in the cable media that went after CBS concerning Memogate was Fox News. The other news agencies didn't even report it, I watched NBC still somewhat at the time and it was never covered on their News program in the evenings, seriously a News Anchor from a major media outlet slandering a sitting President using forged documents is very serious news. However the other news agencies weren't covering it, they were content to bash Bush on various things but not blow the whistle on one of their own trying to slander a sitting President. However MSNBC is eager to go after Fox News, assuming the political party mixup actually happened on their graphics, over a stupid typo by someone in the tech department especially when in those programs the people talking about Foley say he's a Republican isn't anything more than a stupid mistake, yes they should have caught it, but there was no malicious intent.

In summary Fox News constantly finds itself being held to a higher standard due to all the scrutiny they get from other media outlets whom are trying to find anything they can to discredit Fox News.

The other media outlets do not practice the same scrutiny on each other. The only media outlet that seems to scrutinize them is Fox News. That's why I consider Fox News more trustworthy.

Jae Onasi
06-12-2007, 07:25 PM
Odd, US News had been considered the more conservative of the News magazines at one point, and I would expect WSJ to be fairly conservative since anything involving that level of money usually is.

Chicago Tribune is the more conservative paper and the Chicago Sun-Times is the liberal one. It's very interesting to see how they both handle major events, and sometimes what ends up as the headline and lead stories.

GarfieldJL
06-12-2007, 08:10 PM
The study only covered the news stories, it did not cover opinions sections or book reviews.

The study does prove that Conservatives were right all along there was and is a left wing bias in the Mainstream Media. When I get my book by Bernard Goldberg back from the person I loaned it to, I'm going to site some specific examples.

mimartin
06-12-2007, 08:41 PM
Odd, US News had been considered the more conservative of the News magazines at one point, and I would expect WSJ to be fairly conservative since anything involving that level of money usually is.

Chicago Tribune is the more conservative paper and the Chicago Sun-Times is the liberal one. It's very interesting to see how they both handle major events, and sometimes what ends up as the headline and lead stories.

The WSJ is overall conservative, but the news reporting part of the paper is considered liberal. Overall I find they cancel each other out and make for a fair paper, put that is my personal taste as I'm conservative on money and smaller government and more liberal on our freedoms.

I see bias in the local paper and news everyday here. If you were to only watch the local media here you would believe George Bush's approval numbers were still around 60%. Fox News is more to the middle of the road here compare to George Bush home state media. I have nothing against that as the population is largely conservative here, but when they report more on the Texas Aggies than the Texas Longhorns, well to be polite, that when I gripe.

In summary Fox News constantly finds itself being held to a higher standard due to all the scrutiny they get from other media outlets whom are trying to find anything they can to discredit Fox News.

The other media outlets do not practice the same scrutiny on each other. The only media outlet that seems to scrutinize them is Fox News. That's why I consider Fox News more trustworthy.

Our Definition of Bias - Before proceeding, it is useful to clarify our definition of bias. Most important, the definition has nothing to do with the honesty or accuracy of the news outlet. Instead, our notion is more like a taste or preference.

By the studies own definition they are saying that the information presented by all the news organizations may be honest and accurate, so why should I trust Fox News more than CNN which got a closer to the middle score than Fox News?

If as you wrote Fox News is watching all the other media outlets waiting for them to make an mistake, then are they not under the same scrutiny and have to watch what they do or say just as closely as Fox News?

The thing I get from the complete study (from 2005) is most of the Cable and Network News shows were closer than I believed to the center. I’d really like to see an updated study since the country has gone so against the war to see if these numbers inflate both ways.

The Commentators and panel discussion are a large reason I consider Fox News bias. It is one thing to have a commentary once a day or twice a day, but Fox News does it on almost every show. You can not separate the News from these commentaries without competent counter views, then this is blatantly bias .

If you trust them and they share your views then by all means watch them, but please respect my preference to watch Fox News, but also get my news from other sources. All News is bias no matter which side they are on because it is impossible produce or edit a show, magazine, web site or paper and get all the news that affects their views/readers within the limited time/space. When limiting the information to the time/space restraints or when choosing the story they run or don’t run, the producer/editor is allowing there personal and economic views to influence those decisions.

GarfieldJL
06-12-2007, 09:11 PM
A lot of the Fox News shows have a panel thing towards the end of the show, however there are people from both sides of the spectrum on the panels. When Fox News gives opinions they clearly label it as such.

CNN had a rather bad reputation when Bill Clinton was in office as being Clinton News Network. Also Fox News tends to incorporate some humor at the end of shows like Special Report with Brit Hume. Other shows read email they get from viewers.

MSNBC has on Hardball and then Tucker during the time when it is prime time for the news. Fox News however has on their actual news programs at least that's how it is on Eastern Standard Time. Then there was the fact MSNBC had to devote memorial day to talking about prisons in the US, an entire marathon of it. Whereas Fox News covered Memorial ceremonies and actually had the news. CNN did rather well with the Republican debate, not quite as well as Fox News (partially due to technical difficulties). MSNBC's Republican Debate I'm sorry it was just plain garbage, it was more about how to try to humiliate the front runners and paint the Republican Party to look like a party of lunatics.

My point is that Fox News is constantly under a much higher level of scrutiny by people that would like nothing better than for them to make a mistake so they can try to discredit them. However the other mainstream media outlets do not call each other on mistakes or things like memogate. Therefore I consider Fox News to be a better news source due to the fact they are constantly scrutinized by people whom are trying to find any little thing they can to discredit them.

mimartin
06-12-2007, 09:35 PM
A lot of the Fox News shows have a panel thing towards the end of the show, however there are people from both sides of the spectrum on the panels

Like I wrote competent counter views would be helpful. Getting someone to the extreme left is not what I consider fair, but even that does not balance the issue when Ann Coulter is on the other side. Also someone that has the personality to go toe to toe with some of those sharks would be helpful. Inviting someone to participate and then not allowing them to speak over your yelling is by no means fair.

Fox News could be called the Bush network by the same token.

Until the Debates take real unrehearsed and unapproved questions from intelligent voters from both sides then it is all a faux. Until the candidates outline a plan to fix our problems and stop telling me who to blame for my problems then all the debates are a waste of my time no matter how well it is choreographed.

I thought you wrote Fox News was calling the other networks on their mistakes. My bad.

GarfieldJL
06-12-2007, 10:10 PM
Actually Fox News did have people comment on the MSNBC sponsored debate, however they couldn't play very much because MSNBC copyrighted it and forbid it from being reaired. So all they could do was maybe play brief excerpts and comment on it.

mimartin
06-12-2007, 10:32 PM
Actually Fox News did have people comment on the MSNBC sponsored debate, however they couldn't play very much because MSNBC copyrighted it and forbid it from being reaired. So all they could do was maybe play brief excerpts and comment on it.

What? I want to hear from the candidate and then make my own decisions, not have some paid political hack tell me what my decision should be. Why do I need someone to tell me who won when I watched the debate? What I was trying to say about the presidential candidates debates is that they are not a true measure of the candidate’s skills. What the point of taking a test if you already know exactly what every question will be? If they don’t all make 100 then they shouldn’t be on the stage under those conditions.

I'm not saying Fox News is perfect, they do make mistakes, however some of the mistakes people say they make are actually made up. As shown with Ann Coulter's statements.

Question, are is you saying that the screen shots and the clips True_Avery posted are fake, because they both show that Fox News labeled Foley as a Democrat on the screen. They did call him a Republican or a least say the Democrats were after him, but the label identified him as a Democrat from Florida (I guess that is why they call it balanced since they were half right), this is not a made up charge, it is a fact. I saw this live on television as it happen and again last night thanks to True_Avery.

GarfieldJL
06-12-2007, 10:53 PM
What? I want to hear from the candidate and then make my own decisions, not have some paid political hack tell me what my decision should be. Why do I need someone to tell me who won when I watched the debate? What I was trying to say about the presidential candidates debates is that they are not a true measure of the candidate’s skills. What the point of taking a test if you already know exactly what every question will be? If they don’t all make 100 then they shouldn’t be on the stage under those conditions.


I'm saying Fox News couldn't air more that brief snippets of the 1st Republican Debate due to MSNBC's restrictions on the debate being reaired.

After Fox News did the Debate, they reaired it at least 1 more time that night also I don't think they had the same restrictions MSNBC did. Plus CNN when they did the debate partnered with one of the online video places so it could be viewed by anyone at anytime.


Question, are is you saying that the screen shots and the clips True_Avery posted are fake, because they both show that Fox News labeled Foley as a Democrat on the screen. They did call him a Republican or a least say the Democrats were after him, but the label identified him as a Democrat from Florida (I guess that is why they call it balanced since they were half right), this is not a made up charge, it is a fact. I saw this live on television as it happen and again last night thanks to True_Avery.

I'm saying it's suspect because the font color at the bottom was the wrong color and disproportionate to the size that is seen on Fox News television broadcasts. If it is the case that this actually happened, it was a goof up by the tech people, which happens. Another thing is if something like this did happen Bill would have appologized for the mistake, cause he has done so for other goof ups.

Pavlos
06-13-2007, 11:34 AM
Provided the columns in question aren't by Bryony Brainless, I'd agree with that, if not the appellation Torygraph. In line with the Conservative party, perhaps, but not Tory.

Heh... I'm wondering what your thoughts are on Mr. Blair's dreadfully apologetic speech laying into the mass media? I will agree with him that The Independent is a "viewspaper" and not a newspaper, at the very least.

Darth InSidious
06-13-2007, 12:14 PM
Heh... I'm wondering what your thoughts are on Mr. Blair's dreadfully apologetic speech laying into the mass media? I will agree with him that The Independent is a "viewspaper" and not a newspaper, at the very least.
Fairly typical of the slime, I thought.

I don't like the Independent. It's sort of like the BBC, only without the threat of being slapped down if it's too obvious in its bias.

GarfieldJL
06-13-2007, 06:36 PM
Oh that reminds me someone emailed Bill O'Reilly the other night about how the BBC wasn't covering the situation of this Station planning on airing the video of Princess Dianna's dying moments even though Prince William and Prince Harry were both outraged.

Fox News covered it, but according to the email Bill O'Reilly got, the BBC wasn't.

Additionally I'm going to drag some universities into the mix as well.
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jun13/0,4670,BritainIsrael,00.html


Israeli/Lebanon Conflict
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War_photographs_controversies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html

I really need to drag out my speech on media bias.

ET Warrior
06-13-2007, 11:09 PM
Fox News covered it, but according to the email Bill O'Reilly got, the BBC wasn't.
Oh, well if an email that O'Reilly got said so...:rolleyes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/news/newsbeat/070606_diana.shtml

GarfieldJL
06-14-2007, 05:41 PM
Oh, well if an email that O'Reilly got said so...:rolleyes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/news/newsbeat/070606_diana.shtml


I was saying according to the email he got, that doesn't mean necessarily the person was telling the truth, or the bbc story came out after O'Reilly got the email, cause I don't see any date on the story piece as to when it was issued.

Pavlos
06-14-2007, 06:33 PM
I was saying according to the email he got, that doesn't mean necessarily the person was telling the truth, or the bbc story came out after O'Reilly got the email, cause I don't see any date on the story piece as to when it was issued.

However accurate the "tip" was, a broadcaster, or whatever he is, should know to check the sources before standing on top of a soap box and proclaiming it to the world. But then again... we're all human :)

7 June 2007 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6730235.stm)
6 June 2007 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6728941.stm)
6 June 2007 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6726693.stm)
6 June 2007 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6725237.stm)
5 June 2007 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6721789.stm)
28 May 2007 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6697131.stm)

There are many others and the dates are simply "last updated on" dates - so the articles are likely older.

GarfieldJL
06-14-2007, 06:39 PM
Uh that was Bill O'Reilly's mail section, where he reads the e-mail he got.

Pavlos
06-14-2007, 06:42 PM
Uh that was Bill O'Reilly's mail section, where he reads the e-mail he got.

My mistake then :). But I still think he should have done a little bit of research and offered his own opinion and insight into the matter - unless he did, in which case I'm blathering on about nothing... again.

GarfieldJL
06-14-2007, 06:45 PM
My mistake then :). But I still think he should have done a little bit of research and offered his own opinion and insight into the matter - unless he did, in which case I'm blathering on about nothing... again.

Well it was just email he got, someone thanking him for covering the Diana situation, and that person was from the UK whom in their email to O'Reilly stated that the BBC wasn't covering it, could mean they meant on television programming.

Dagobahn Eagle
06-14-2007, 06:53 PM
FOX News is clearly biased, clearly misinforms its viewers, and clearly can not be trusted.

As for giving directions to where an alleged terrorist had lived ages ago... if they really did that, that's beyond reprehensible - it's more reminiscent of something a low-grade tabloid or on-line stalker would do. Not to mention that it's very likely not a 'mistake' or 'isolated incident' at all.

Other incidents are the almost totally made-up covering of the Swedish city of Malmö, which, if we were to believe FOX News, was a Hell-hole of violence, death and robbery because of its high Muslim population. In reality, only ,2% of the population of the area covered by FOX was Islamic, and the violence was in no way restricted to Muslims. The channel also stated Obama was a Muslim and never bothered to retract the statement.

Finally, to end my short list of examples, a poll made by World Public Opinion indicates that viewers of FOX News have significantly more misconceptions on several important issues, such as WMDs in Iraq, than viewers of other networks. Source (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc).

Source: FOX News Channel controversies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies)
Oh, and there's a Senate thread on this already. Search 'FOX News' and it should appear.

GarfieldJL
06-14-2007, 07:02 PM
I'm well aware how much the liberal left hates Fox News. As far as your source, world opinion.org I've never even heard of them. Nor did I ever see the report they're talking about, top that off there was legislation to yank NPR's and PBS's federal funding because they were getting into supporting the Democrat Party when they are both supposed to remain politically neutral.

ET Warrior
06-14-2007, 08:24 PM
Uh that was Bill O'Reilly's mail section, where he reads the e-mail he got.And since I am absolutely certain he does not read every email that he receives, it means that specific email was chosen to be read in what is apparently a direct effort to mislead viewers.

GarfieldJL
06-14-2007, 09:13 PM
And since I am absolutely certain he does not read every email that he receives, it means that specific email was chosen to be read in what is apparently a direct effort to mislead viewers.


He usually tries to get mail that are on both sides of the argument in question, I really doubt that Bill was trying to mislead viewers. What's really interesting is that people only seem to be going after Fox News with the exception of myself. I've been the only one to demonstrate bias in the other networks.

Dagobahn Eagle
06-14-2007, 11:12 PM
What's really interesting is that people only seem to be going after Fox News with the exception of myself.Because the topic appears to be FOX News. The first post states that you see no reason to not trust them, and it goes from there.

When you discuss invading Iraq, you don't also have to add a disclaimer saying 'oh, but I hate North Korea, Iran, and every other oppressive regime out there, too!'. If I discuss evolution, I don't add a sticker to my post saying I also support the Big Bang theory, the theory of gravity, and atomic theory. I dislike all media bias - as a matter of fact I'm quite irritated, quite often at the left-wing bias of certain Norwegian news outlets - but this thread's apparently about FOX News, despite its title.

Nor did I ever see the report they're talking about
You do now. (http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf)

True_Avery
06-14-2007, 11:18 PM
Also, just because you find bias in other networks does not instantly mean that Fox is an exception. I notice, Garfield, that you love pointing out problems with other news networks but still hold onto the thought that Fox is "Fair and Balanced."

There is no such thing as a Fair and Balanced news network. And people particularly like attacking Fox because it is a rather silly and over the top news network. I know liberals, democrats, -and- republicans who all think it is a joke, so don't assume that it is a war between the liberals/democrats and all the republicans.

GarfieldJL
06-14-2007, 11:24 PM
Oh so you're saying that everyone else offers the real news and only Fox News and Conservative Radio shows spew propaganda?

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-can-you-trust.html

By the way, why has Fox News outdone all the other news outlets if people think it's a joke? Seriously, why did Fox News due a much better Republican Primary debate than MSNBC?

Windu Chi
06-14-2007, 11:25 PM
He usually tries to get mail that are on both sides of the argument in question, I really doubt that Bill was trying to mislead viewers. What's really interesting is that people only seem to be going after Fox News with the exception of myself. I've been the only one to demonstrate bias in the other networks.
Bill O'Reilly shouldn't be trusted, that guy's misdirection on issues is very apparent.

True_Avery
06-14-2007, 11:26 PM
Are you even listening to us at all? You really are acting like we are attacking you directly.

No news station is infallible. I think all news is bias, including msnbc, cnn, abc, fox, and all the others. You are the one saying that everybody is bias -except- for Fox News.

GarfieldJL
06-14-2007, 11:27 PM
Bill O'Reilly shouldn't be trusted, that guy's misdirection on issues is very apparent.



Windu, you do realize Bill O'Reilly is a commentator, and btw he often presents stuff to back his statements up. Including one from a supposed "expert" from MSNBC calling our troops mercenaries. He provided a link to the guy's article for people to see for themselves.

I'm not saying Fox News doesn't have bias btw, I'm saying they are more trustworthy than you give them credit for.

ET Warrior
06-15-2007, 02:34 AM
I really doubt that Bill was trying to mislead viewers. Of course you really doubt that. You have demonstrated in this thread that you truly believe that Fox news is doing everything it can to present you with unbiased news. This is why you apparently miss their obvious bias.

mimartin
06-15-2007, 11:42 AM
Seriously, why did Fox News due a much better Republican Primary debate than MSNBC?

Could it be they are more use to choreographing entertainment programs than reporting real news?

He usually tries to get mail that are on both sides of the argument in question...

But who choices the emails he reads on the air? All I hear him read from the left are emails that attack him personally, thus making it easy for him to portray the left as a bunch of nut jobs.

Windu, you do realize Bill O'Reilly is a commentator, and btw he often presents stuff to back his statements up. Including one from a supposed "expert" from MSNBC calling our troops mercenaries. He provided a link to the guy's article for people to see for themselves.

You’ve written over and over GarfieldJL the difference between commentary and news reporting and how it is acceptable for Fox News to be considered “Fair and Balanced” if you separate the commentator’s views from the news program. Personally I would consider a Blog the same as commentary in that it is the author’s personal views. Mr. William M Arkin used the term “mercenaries” is a sarcastic matter while trying to make his point. While I believe it to be at best a poor excuse for humor or at worst it is inapprehensible, I fail to see how this proves media bias using your definition. I also fail to see what this has to do with MSNBC as Mr. William M Arkin wrote this blog in the blog section of the Washington Post.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/01/the_troops_also_need_to_suppor.html

I’m interested in reporters being fair on the air that does not mean the reporter can not have personal views off the air.

The main reason I have a problem with Fox News is their self appointed slogans they use on the air, like “Fair and Balanced” and “No Spin.” When neither is remotely true, if they decide to change the slogans to “Fair to the right and leaning strongly to the right” and “Spin to the right” then I would have no problem with them.

What's really interesting is that people only seem to be going after Fox News with the exception of myself. I've been the only one to demonstrate bias in the other networks.

Reverse the question and ask yourself why you are the only one defending Fox News?

Most people here have admitted that no news network is unbiased. All News agencies have leanings and most are to the left. No one here is defending CBS, ABC, NBC, BBC, CNN or any other media source the way you are defending Fox News. Even when evidence is presented that Fox News makes mistakes, you’ve question it as a left wing conspiracy against Fox News.

Like I’ve said before if you trust Fox News then watch Fox News, just don’t expect everyone else to agree with you that everything they spout is true and unbias.

Windu Chi
06-15-2007, 12:49 PM
“Fair and Balanced” and “No Spin.” When neither is remotely true.

It is not completely true, period.
Not, remotely!
No, uncertainty!
Anybody who watch that channel should obviously notice that.

GarfieldJL
06-16-2007, 03:02 PM
mimartin, I've read that article you're talking about and a lot of people myself included really believe the sarcasm statement is a copout. I've read that article for myself in that guy's own hand, our troops put their lives on the line for our freedom everyday and for that guy to try to paint our troops as mercenaries is beneath contempt.


Windu Chi, as for your statements concerning Bill O'Reilly, I'm going to state he does give his opinions, that being said, he clearly labels things as his opinion when he gives it.

Statements like:
"You know what I think I think..."

He clearly makes it known when he's giving his opinion, he's also a commentator, which is a lot better than Dan Rather's reporting the story concerning Bush which turned out to be bogus as the truth because it didn't matter what the facts indicated it was what Dan Rather believed.

Next there is the fact that Fox News routinely has people on from both sides of the Political Spectrum.

Alan Colmes is a democrat.

Routine guests like Dick Morris and Bernard Goldberg are both liberals, though Mr. Goldberg is the one that pointed out the left wing bias in the mainstream media and was turned into a pariah because of it.

Windu, just because Fox News leans conservative doesn't mean they aren't trustworthy. Have they made mistakes, probably no one is perfect, however they've worked to improve themselves and they take feedback and listen to it.

The thing people aren't taking into account is that due to the fact Fox News doesn't follow the "mainstream media outlets" and Fox News is getting extremely good ratings, is that those outlets are trying to find anything they can no matter how small that can be used to discredit Fox News. The "mainstream media" does not call each other when say CBS reports a bogus story everyone was eerily silent except Fox News.

I'm not saying one shouldn't get information from multiple sources, however you really have to be careful what you consider as a different source. Many media outlets get their stories directly from The New York Times that means outlets like CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and ABC pull their stories from the same source. Literally, The New York Times is the most influencial paper in the United States even though over 90% of Americans don't read it, it's just that it's the paper of choice for the media elite. See the problem with using NBC as a source to confirm what CBS says? They're both getting their story from the same source, you're just hearing two different media outlets reporting material using the same source. While Fox News does pay attention to The New York Times, they don't rely on it like other media outlets.

mimartin
06-17-2007, 03:19 PM
mimartin, I've read that article you're talking about and a lot of people myself included really believe the sarcasm statement is a copout. I've read that article for myself in that guy's own hand, our troops put their lives on the line for our freedom everyday and for that guy to try to paint our troops as mercenaries is beneath contempt.

And I wrote as much above, but it was not an article as you and Bill O'Reilly imply. It was a blog. Are you saying that there is no difference between a blog and a news article written for a magazine or website? If there isn’t a difference, then why is there a difference between a commentary and news program? Or are you saying it ok for everyone on the right to have a personal opinion, but news personalities on the left should keep their big mouths shut?

I’m not defending Mr. William M. Arkin, but I fail to see how a blog proves that MSNBC (as you stated) or NBC (as Bill O’Really stated) is/is becoming more bias than any other News Agency including Fox News.

GarfieldJL
06-17-2007, 06:36 PM
Mr. William M. Arkin portrays himself as a "military expert" even on MSNBC, so he's claiming to be an expert on our military, when in fact he isn't.

O'Reilly is a commentator, he gives his views on stories and such, however he doesn't make claims that he's the expert of something that he isn't. This is also the difference between the Swift Boat Vets and the CBS Memogate. The swift boat vets were whom they claimed to be, the CBS memogate involved falsified documents. O'Reilly gave the swift boat vets a fair hearing, he invited John Kerry on to rebut it and Kerry never did.

O'Reilly also treated the President with respect in interviews because:
1. Bush answered the question instead of going on a circular rant instead of answering the question.
2. If you act in a manner that the Secret Service perceives that the President is being threatened you're liable to be arrested.

Further note concerning memogate:
The authenticity was put into question less than an hour after the story aired. CBS kept clinging to the idea that it was the truth for two weeks. They also tried to impede people from taking a look at it for themselves because it had become apparent very quickly that it wouldn't hold up. To be blunt the memo was in a font style that wasn't even in use while President Bush was in the National Guard, further the memo's font spacing was variable something you find with computer printouts. By the way reprinting scanned text will come back in the original font with the original spacing because of the fact scans are in the form of an image.

mimartin
06-17-2007, 08:14 PM
Mr. William M. Arkin portrays himself as a "military expert" even on MSNBC, so he's claiming to be an expert on our military, when in fact he isn't.

How do you know he isn't an expert? If you read the BLOG you'd know that Mr. Arkin did serve as an active member of the American military. He also voluntarily, but was not sent to Vietnam. Then who should decide just who is a military expert? Should we consider someone that broke the law while serving the nation as a military officer an expert? What if he got off on a technicality?

I still fail to see what a blog has to do with Media bias.

I also fail to see what the swift boat has to do with media bias. All the networks covered it even though it contradicted official military records. I have to much respect for the men and women that serve our nation to criticize that service. I would never question John McCain’s just because I may disagree with his politics. I never served, but my father, step-father, uncles and brother all did. They all say the military makes a lot of mistakes, but they usually don’t give out silver stars and purple hearts to undeserving people. They had the right to question what he did after the war, but as far as his service, well at least he served instead of hiding in England or using his father’s influence to get into the National Guard.

CBS got rid of the problem; I don’t think there much else they can do besides termination.

Totenkopf
06-18-2007, 03:27 AM
About the only thing they could've done besides termination would have been to file some kind of lawsuit. Beyond charging them with some kind of malicious misuse of company property....(but not being a lawyer, I don't know what you could charge, nor do I believe that they'd do it if they could). Termination would have been suitable enough, with anything extra--beyond perhaps informal blackballing (ie "you'll never work in this racket again, kid")--amounting to overkill.


I think that the choice of material presented by a media outlet is also what earns it the label of bias (either to the right or left). If an outfit like MSNBC tends to drift leftward in its choice of material, that reflects a bias at that network. An internal BBC report has just recently revealed left leaning bias within its corporation. I agree that Arkin's free to write whatever he wants w/in the confines of the law. It's up to us to decide whether he presents himself in a credible fashion.

GarfieldJL
06-18-2007, 10:48 AM
Was this thing with the BBC before or after their fiasco concerning the Israeli/Lebanon War.

Pavlos
06-18-2007, 11:27 AM
Was this thing with the BBC before or after their fiasco concerning the Israeli/Lebanon War.

Fiasco? Linky to news story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6763205.stm) - it also contains a link to the full report.

mimartin
06-18-2007, 11:51 AM
About the only thing they could've done besides termination would have been to file some kind of lawsuit. Beyond charging them with some kind of malicious misuse of company property....(but not being a lawyer, I don't know what you could charge, nor do I believe that they'd do it if they could). Termination would have been suitable enough, with anything extra--beyond perhaps informal blackballing (ie "you'll never work in this racket again, kid")--amounting to overkill.

I agree the only other thing that could be done would have to be a lawsuit and (while I’m not a lawyer) I believe only the injured party could bring said suit against the involved party, which was George Bush. However, the suit could possibly make George Bush produce his actual military records, which is something he has refused to do.

Bush would have also had to deal with the interview with Ben Barns, who told 60 minutes in an interview that he had recommended that George Bush get preferential treatment to obtain a position in the Tex ANG in 1968. Ben Barnes, was the former Lieutenant Governor of Texas and Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives. By doing nothing and letting CBS take the heat and then just fire the reporter and producer, Bush never had to answer these questions about his service record.

http://www.rathergate.com/

CBS could have sued, but why it would just added to their already unwanted publicity and a suit against employees would be difficult to prove. It would also look bad to future employees.

GarfieldJL
06-18-2007, 12:00 PM
Something I noticed that's bad with the BBC is they don't post the date when the article was posted just when the site was last updated. I looked at the comments though and it really disgusted me.

Pavlos
06-21-2007, 04:12 PM
Anyways, to comment on the BBC, to be blunt they are extremely left wing and some could even say anti-semetic. The Israelis have called the BBC the english version of Al-Jazeerez.

Extremely left wing?! It has a liberal bias (you do have to look for it, though) but on the issue of left-right I'd say it is pretty centrist. Although, I suppose I'm operating on UK and European standards :). The BBC's editorial guideline is "Impartiality & diversity of opinion." I think Andrew Marr summed it up nicely when he said, "The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."

I'm really rather intrigued as to why the Israelis (as a group, seemingly) have taken to calling the BBC the British version of Al Jazeera. I don't see terrorists having candid interviews with Hue Edwards on the 10 o'clock news - be interesting, though :xp:.

GarfieldJL
06-21-2007, 07:32 PM
Actually, there is a lot of stuff to back up the claim that the BBC is the English version of Al-Jazeera. Look no further than the Israeli/Lebanon war. There is a load of stuff that the BBC misrepresented the facts putting it mildly among many other media outlets. I don't really want to get into it in this topic.


Back to topic, this problem isn't exactly a new one, but it seems to have gotten worse more recently than it used to be.

Pavlos
06-22-2007, 12:26 PM
Actually, there is a lot of stuff to back up the claim that the BBC is the English version of Al-Jazeera. Look no further than the Israeli/Lebanon war. There is a load of stuff that the BBC misrepresented the facts putting it mildly among many other media outlets. I don't really want to get into it in this topic.

You can't say "there's a lot of stuff" and then not show me any evidence. It's not that I doubt your word - things like this have happened before to countless (i.e. all) news organisations. But I don't think a series of mistakes (if this really did happen - it was during my "Oh I don't care any more" phase, so I have no idea) causes a news station to be "extremely left-wing." Are all people on the left, for example, in favour of Arabs and those on the right are in favour of the Israelis? I think that's a gross generalisation, to be frank. :)

Your argument contains an allusion that all people on the left are lairs. Unless, of course, I am misinterpreting what you are trying to say.

Oh, and perhaps it would be best if a moderator could move our posts on this matter to the thread about political bias in the media? :)

GarfieldJL
06-22-2007, 02:52 PM
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/


This implicates a lot of media organizations, courtesy of Zombietime.


Maybe a mod should transfer this to the bias in the media thread plz.


I'm not saying all people on the left are liars, seriously I know some people at work that are left wing and I don't think they are liars.

If it was a guy trying to use math class to further political agenda for Republicans in elementry school I'd be up in arms about it, and you can bet the mainstream media would be all over it. However this is a left wing group, so I was asking if anyone else had seen anything about this on the mainstream media. Cause this may not have ever been brought into the light here if I hadn't saw the Radical Math story on Fox News, then went out online to see for myself, if the other media outlets aren't reporting on it.

Totenkopf
07-21-2007, 03:36 AM
A recent example of bias:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/washpost-leaves-out-party-label-pol-charged-running-brothel.html

mimartin
07-21-2007, 02:20 PM
A recent example of bias:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/washpost-leaves-out-party-label-pol-charged-running-brothel.html


It would actually depend on the how the polls handle mayor political affiliation if I would consider this bias. Some cities do not allow party affiliation for local government as they feel it will hurt them with conventions and grants. In that case I’d say it did not show any bias at all.

historically nonpartisan mayoral contest, is a self-described "lifelong Democrat."

I’d say the last line of the article says it all and yes this a good example of media bias by “Newsbusters” and not the Washington Post.

Totenkopf
07-21-2007, 04:59 PM
It would actually depend on the how the polls handle mayor political affiliation if I would consider this bias. Some cities do not allow party affiliation for local government as they feel it will hurt them with conventions and grants. In that case I’d say it did not show any bias at all.
I’d say the last line of the article says it all and yes this a good example of media bias by “Newsbusters” and not the Washington Post.

Not so sure that flies b/c anyone paying attention knew that Koch and Dinkins were Dems and Guilianni and Bloomberg were republicans. I doubt that people in government who are inclined to discriminate on the basis of party affiliation are unaware of what party supports the mayoral candidates that win, nor would the WP be either.

mimartin
07-21-2007, 05:39 PM
I actually thought I was supporting a Democrat in Houston only to find he turned out to be a life long Republican and another mayor I thought was Republican she turned out to be a Democrat. In city government it has less to do with partisanship or politics and more about what is best for the city. It should be that way on the National scene too.

If he ran as a democrat then the Washington Post should say he was a Democrat, but as they said he was elected to be a nonpartisan mayor thus implying the Democrats are guilty of something because of his actions is no better than saying that Timothy McVeigh was a Republican an thus the Republican are teaching hatred to there children. Or saying Muslim are all guilty for bin Ladin’s actions. Are you and the Newbuster condoning putting political affiliations next to everyone charged or convinced of a crime?

Totenkopf
07-21-2007, 05:46 PM
Frankly, whats' good for the goose.... I agree that it would be optimal for all that the side issue of political affiliation not be brought up. But, I guess it's called politics for a reason. Mores the pity. Actually, I don't believe however, that such a broad stroke approach is necessary. When democrats go on about the politics of corruption, I doubt they are saying that every single republican is actually corrupt (or at least would likely to be loathe to admit to such a thing) Just b/c Clinton may have raped someone (according to allegations) doesn't have to mean that all democrats are painted as potential rapists.

mimartin
07-21-2007, 05:56 PM
Agreed. Of course I missed the big picture. Just by saying he was the mayor of Washington D.C. I assumed he was a Democrat. ;)

GarfieldJL
07-25-2007, 10:37 AM
The "New Republic" is possibly in trouble for printing stories about attrocities committed by US soldiers in Iraq that never happened. The credibility of the source of these stories are in question even on the basis of basic facts.

If Rush Limbaugh did something like this, he'd lose his job, seriously the liberal left would be calling for his head. Then there is the "Equal Time" Act that the left is trying to have put into place again, okay if they want equal time, how about we see more conservatives on the mainstream media outlets like CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC.

mimartin
07-25-2007, 10:59 AM
Rush Limbaugh did something seriously illegal and kept his job. I don’t care what political affiliation someone is advocating, as long as they are making their bosses money they keep their job. Beside Rush Limbaugh is not a journalist he is part of the elite entertainment industry that he is always harping against.

How about we see and hear less conservative on FoxNews?

Totenkopf
07-25-2007, 03:13 PM
How about we see and hear less conservative on FoxNews?


Sure, so long as there is a corresponding matching increase in conservative on the rest of the networks. Afterall, "fair and balanced" should be a slogan for ALL news networks.

mimartin
07-25-2007, 03:53 PM
Afterall, "fair and balanced" should be a slogan for ALL news networks.

I don’t want it to be a slogan, but I do what them all strive for being balanced. Saying it is true means nothing.

GarfieldJL
07-25-2007, 08:08 PM
I don’t want it to be a slogan, but I do what them all strive for being balanced. Saying it is true means nothing.


Define what you mean by balanced? Seriously, mainstream media outlets think they are already balanced what their opinions are is the truth and anyone that disagrees with them are right-wing radical loonies, they couldn't figure out how to be balanced at all.

Totenkopf
07-25-2007, 09:12 PM
Afterall, "fair and balanced" should be a GOAL for ALL news networks.

There, fixed. ;)

mimartin
07-26-2007, 10:42 AM
Define what you mean by balanced? Seriously, mainstream media outlets think they are already balanced what their opinions are is the truth and anyone that disagrees with them are right-wing radical loonies, they couldn't figure out how to be balanced at all.

My opinion of what the definition of balanced should mean for the news media is giving the facts, both the good and the bad. It should not take sides to the left or to the right. When giving each side of a particular argument the media should give equal time and equal voice to both sides. The journalist should not take either side and certainly should not purposely belittle either speaker. The journalist can have personal opinions to the left or right, but they should not become part of the story or the discussion.

I personally don’t believe any of them are balanced, but in fairness most do not make that their slogan. I was always told you did not have to tell people you are honest, if you are truly an honest person they know it. If you have to go around telling them you’re honest you are probably a liar.

I’ve only seen one person in this tread not admit that a news media outlet was not bias. I believe that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, BBC and FoxNews are all bias to one side or the other. Some are just more subtle than others.

I’ve also not seen many mainstream media outlets journalist call other people names. Media professionals calling people disparaging names and attacking them personally usually means their own arguments are weak; they are just rude or they have a serious inferiority complex. It is also unprofessional and if they are getting really angered over a story then they are showing their bias. Even when I agree with their position of the reporter or new commentator, they are still bias if they are becoming personally involved.