quote:

By appearing on Fox, reporters validate its propaganda values and help to undermine the role of legitimate news organizations.

quote:

fair-mindedness of the rest of the media

quote:

Originally posted by AaannndddPunt:
The O’Garbage Factor
Fox News isn't just bad. It's un-American.
Published Oct 17, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Oct 26, 2009

Last week, when White House Communications Director Anita Dunn charged the Fox News Channel with right-wing bias, Fox responded the way it always does. It denied the accusation with a straight face while proceeding to confirm it with its coverage.

Consider Fox's Web story on the episode. It quotes five people. Two of them work for Fox. All of them assert that administration officials are either wrong in substance or politically foolish to criticize the network. No one is cited supporting Dunn's criticisms or saying that it could make sense for Obama to challenge the network's power. It's a textbook example of a biased journalism. (Click here to follow Jacob Weisberg.)

If you were watching Fox News Channel, you saw the familiar roster of platinum pundettes and anchor androids reciting the same soundbites: this was Obama's version of Nixon's enemies list, the rest of the news media is in Obama's corner, Obama should get back to governing, and so on. On The O'Reilly Factor, Alan Colmes, the network's weak, battered house liberal, mumbled semi-agreement while "Doctor" Monica Crowley and Bill O'Reilly lit up the scoreboard with these talking points.

Any news organization that took its responsibilities seriously would take pains to cover presidential criticism fairly. It would regard doing so as itself a test of integrity. At Fox, by contrast, complaints of unfairness prompt only hoots of derision and demands for "evidence" that, when presented, is brushed off and ignored.

There is no need to get bogged down in this phony debate, which itself constitutes an abuse of the fair-mindedness of the rest of the media. One glance at Fox's Web site or five minutes' random viewing of the channel at any hour of the day demonstrates its all-pervasive slant. The lefty documentary Outfoxed spent a lot of time mustering evidence that Fox managers order reporters to take the Republican side. But after 13 years under Roger Ailes, Fox employees skew news right as instinctively as fish swim.

Rather than in any way maturing, Fox has in recent months become more boisterous and demagogic. Fox sponsored as much as it covered the anti-Obama "tea parties" this summer. Its "fact checking" about the president's health-care proposal is provided by Karl Rove. And weepy Glenn Beck has begun to exhibit a Strangelovean concern about government invading our bloodstream by vaccinating people for swine flu. With this misinformation campaign, Fox stands to become the first network to actively try to kill its viewers.

That Rupert Murdoch may tilt the news rightward more for commercial than ideological reasons is beside the point. What matters is the way that Fox's model has invaded the bloodstream of the American media. By showing that ideologically distorted news can drive ratings, Ailes has provoked his rivals at CNN and MSNBC to develop a variety of populist and ideological takes on the news. In this way, Fox hasn't just corrupted its own coverage. Its example has made all of cable news unpleasant and unreliable.

What's most distinctive about the American press is not its freedom but its century-old tradition of independence—that it serves the public interest rather than those of parties, persuasions, or pressure groups. Media independence is a 20th-century innovation that has never fully taken root in many other countries that do have a free press. The Australian-British-continental model of politicized media that Murdoch has applied at Fox is un-American, so much so that he has little choice but go on denying what he's doing as he does it. For Murdoch, Ailes, and company, "fair and balanced" is a necessary lie. To admit that their coverage is slanted by design would violate the American understanding of the media's role in democracy and our idea of what constitutes fair play. But it's a demonstrable deceit that no longer deserves equal time.

Whether the White House engages with Fox is a tactical political question. Whether we journalists continue to do so is an ethical one. By appearing on Fox, reporters validate its propaganda values and help to undermine the role of legitimate news organizations. Respectable journalists—I'm talking to you, Mara Liasson—should stop appearing on its programs. A boycott would make Ailes too happy, so let's try just ignoring Fox, shall we? And no, I don't want to come on The O'Reilly Factor to discuss it.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/218192

quote:

Originally posted by gramps41:
Wait, please, let me get my head back in the sand. Everything's OK, Wolf Blitzer just said so. So did Jack Cafferty. Bush is no longer here, the bogeyman is gone.Oh the Messiah just said Hope and change. All is cool

quote:

Originally posted by BrokenDawg:
Fox news is the ONLY news network that reports at least partial truths. I know it's an adjustment for all of you to hear honest reporting with no bias reporting brainwashing you to think Obama is the best thing that has ever happened to our Country but the concept of truth will grow on you! Time will show all!!

quote:

Originally posted by fishtheice:
Sorry farm, but you have Fox confused with the Nancy Grace show.

quote:

Originally posted by Dawg57:

quote:

Originally posted by AaannndddPunt:
The O’Garbage Factor
Fox News isn't just bad. It's un-American.
Published Oct 17, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Oct 26, 2009

Last week, when White House Communications Director Anita Dunn charged the Fox News Channel with right-wing bias, Fox responded the way it always does. It denied the accusation with a straight face while proceeding to confirm it with its coverage.

Consider Fox's Web story on the episode. It quotes five people. Two of them work for Fox. All of them assert that administration officials are either wrong in substance or politically foolish to criticize the network. No one is cited supporting Dunn's criticisms or saying that it could make sense for Obama to challenge the network's power. It's a textbook example of a biased journalism. (Click here to follow Jacob Weisberg.)

If you were watching Fox News Channel, you saw the familiar roster of platinum pundettes and anchor androids reciting the same soundbites: this was Obama's version of Nixon's enemies list, the rest of the news media is in Obama's corner, Obama should get back to governing, and so on. On The O'Reilly Factor, Alan Colmes, the network's weak, battered house liberal, mumbled semi-agreement while "Doctor" Monica Crowley and Bill O'Reilly lit up the scoreboard with these talking points.

Any news organization that took its responsibilities seriously would take pains to cover presidential criticism fairly. It would regard doing so as itself a test of integrity. At Fox, by contrast, complaints of unfairness prompt only hoots of derision and demands for "evidence" that, when presented, is brushed off and ignored.

There is no need to get bogged down in this phony debate, which itself constitutes an abuse of the fair-mindedness of the rest of the media. One glance at Fox's Web site or five minutes' random viewing of the channel at any hour of the day demonstrates its all-pervasive slant. The lefty documentary Outfoxed spent a lot of time mustering evidence that Fox managers order reporters to take the Republican side. But after 13 years under Roger Ailes, Fox employees skew news right as instinctively as fish swim.

Rather than in any way maturing, Fox has in recent months become more boisterous and demagogic. Fox sponsored as much as it covered the anti-Obama "tea parties" this summer. Its "fact checking" about the president's health-care proposal is provided by Karl Rove. And weepy Glenn Beck has begun to exhibit a Strangelovean concern about government invading our bloodstream by vaccinating people for swine flu. With this misinformation campaign, Fox stands to become the first network to actively try to kill its viewers.

That Rupert Murdoch may tilt the news rightward more for commercial than ideological reasons is beside the point. What matters is the way that Fox's model has invaded the bloodstream of the American media. By showing that ideologically distorted news can drive ratings, Ailes has provoked his rivals at CNN and MSNBC to develop a variety of populist and ideological takes on the news. In this way, Fox hasn't just corrupted its own coverage. Its example has made all of cable news unpleasant and unreliable.

What's most distinctive about the American press is not its freedom but its century-old tradition of independence—that it serves the public interest rather than those of parties, persuasions, or pressure groups. Media independence is a 20th-century innovation that has never fully taken root in many other countries that do have a free press. The Australian-British-continental model of politicized media that Murdoch has applied at Fox is un-American, so much so that he has little choice but go on denying what he's doing as he does it. For Murdoch, Ailes, and company, "fair and balanced" is a necessary lie. To admit that their coverage is slanted by design would violate the American understanding of the media's role in democracy and our idea of what constitutes fair play. But it's a demonstrable deceit that no longer deserves equal time.

Whether the White House engages with Fox is a tactical political question. Whether we journalists continue to do so is an ethical one. By appearing on Fox, reporters validate its propaganda values and help to undermine the role of legitimate news organizations. Respectable journalists—I'm talking to you, Mara Liasson—should stop appearing on its programs. A boycott would make Ailes too happy, so let's try just ignoring Fox, shall we? And no, I don't want to come on The O'Reilly Factor to discuss it.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/218192

How are things there in the "Merry old land of Oz"? Your problem is FOX has Obamugabes number and you know it! Enjoy those poll numbers as they tumble on a daily basis. But I did hear he scores high in Cuba,Iran, and North Korea.

quote:

Originally posted by FREEZERDUDE:
If Fox is indeed biased Trev them would it follow that the reason their raitings dominate the other networks is because that many more viewers tend to agree with their philisophical point of view as compared to that of the other networks? Moreover, if that is the case, doesn't that highlight the alarming tyranny of the liberal administration and the majority leadership in congress? I've always respected your point of view Trev so I will be very interested to read your thoughts on this.

quote:

Originally posted by BrokenDawg:
Fox news is the ONLY news network that reports at least partial truths. I know it's an adjustment for all of you to hear honest reporting with no bias reporting brainwashing you to think Obama is the best thing that has ever happened to our Country but the concept of truth will grow on you! Time will show all!!

quote:

Originally posted by Upbeat Dawg:
Once elected they started on Obama without giving him so much as a CHANCE. That hardly smacks at fair and unbiased...

quote:

Originally posted by gabedawg:
I dont want to give him a chance- he is a liar! He lies every time he gets in front of a microphone- which is way too much!

FOX is the only one that calls him out on his BS- Beck has a dedicated white house phone line in his studio for THEM to call if he lies! The phone has yet to ring!!

I love FOX!

quote:

Originally posted by onubrownsbacker:

quote:

Originally posted by Upbeat Dawg:
Once elected they started on Obama without giving him so much as a CHANCE. That hardly smacks at fair and unbiased...

Why is it that all democrats want us to "give Obama a chance?" If I dont agree with his policies why should I "give him a chance?"

That phrase is often used as a shield for getting policies in place before we can prevent their drastically detrimental effects

If Obama does not represent my interests, why should I give him a chance? The answer is that I shouldnt...and thankfully the 2010 election SHOULD take away from his caucus and will show that the conservatives have a newly revitalized mandate to govern!

quote:

Originally posted by trevilli:
That's one conclusion you could draw from it. Or, you could also say that maybe Fox does a better job of packaging the show and presenting it. My point was more that the purpose of TV is to sell you stuff, not keep you informed. As to the tyranny of government, I would agree. However, I think that neither the Dems or Repubs have the best interest of the country at heart. As I'm sure you remember Freezer, I was pretty hard on Bush when he was President. I just don't think the end result for us ordinary folks changes very much if one party or the other is in power. The system is filled with corrupt people throughout and desperately needs an enema.

quote:

Originally posted by Upbeat Dawg:

quote:

Originally posted by BrokenDawg:
Fox news is the ONLY news network that reports at least partial truths. I know it's an adjustment for all of you to hear honest reporting with no bias reporting brainwashing you to think Obama is the best thing that has ever happened to our Country but the concept of truth will grow on you! Time will show all!!

Once elected they started on Obama without giving him so much as a CHANCE. That hardly smacks at fair and unbiased...

Keep talking your giving yourself away.....

quote:

Originally posted by revkev34:
Einstein said everything is reletive...when you live by the code of the left coast long enough the middle seems right winged.

quote:

I can't even figure out why anyone pays for cable anymore to be honest.