Does FoxNews Make You Ignorant and Bigoted?

originally posted by: daaskapital
The article reads like a desperate attempt to properly inform viewers of what to expect regarding Muslims and Ramadan. I guess there is no better audience to inform, than those of Fox News though...

And this reads like the response of someone who wants desperately to feel superior to his ideological opponents.

a reply to: abe froman
An important fact about those 2 Black Panther idiots is that they were there not to terrorize or intimidate voters. That Philadelphia precinct is an overwhelmingly African-American and other minority precinct. They were there to intimidate the Republican poll watchers who were suspected of turning away black voters.

FOX's early morning show with the 3 talking heads (Doocy, Kilmeade and Hasselback) is useless. That show, imo, does insult one's intelligence. I like the late, late show FOX has with Greg Gutfeld, Andy Levy and the revolving guest lineup. They basically mock popular culture and make fun of politicians.

I also like Dennis Miller.

I saw a FOX interviewer the other night speaking with Dick Cheney about Iraq. (Don't remember the interviewers name. Chris something)
Cheney said Obama and the dems are responsible for the current Iraq crisis. The FOX interviewer replied:
"A lot of people think YOU"RE responsible for the problems in Iraq."
It was a good interview, imo. The FOX guy made some good points. He didn't take Cheney's side. Not at all.

If you're discerning and perceptive, you can seperate the wheat from the chaff, as it were.
If you're suspicious about what a news pundit is saying, you can always fact-check it.

Back to the OP:
If people can be made ignorant and bigoted by watching a news network, I hate to think what watching "Jersey Shore" or The Kardashians might do to them.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: daaskapital
The article reads like a desperate attempt to properly inform viewers of what to expect regarding Muslims and Ramadan. I guess there is no better audience to inform, than those of Fox News though...

And this reads like the response of someone who wants desperately to feel superior to his ideological opponents.

Get real, hahaha.

I don't subscribe to any one particular ideology, and i don't think anyone should.

I also don't understand how anyone can actually stand up and defend biased outlets such as Fox News or MSNBC. They're all #, and can't be trusted. All they're good for is earning money any publishing biased material.

a reply to: sheepslayer247
Wow

SS, talking about bigotry, don't you enjoy posting anti christian post?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: darkbake

When I was learning about journalism at college, I learned how it works. You do report the basic facts of the Ws and the H, but the reporter is supposed to rank them according to what is most important. How a reporter does that is biased by his or her personal schema. If you are right-leaning or left-leaning, those rankings will be different. Additionally, the words you would choose will also be different.

You are partially correct.

Yes, journalists have to rank the information based on news values, but the actual scheme of ranking them is mostly never set in stone. Some journalists may have a standard list of where they think the news values should lie in every story, but generally, the news values will change from one story to another. This means that the very essence of one story can be different to another, as it will have vastly different subject matter, and as such, would require the journalist to tailor the ranking of the news values (and the Ws and H) to that one story. As a result, the rankings shouldn't be affected by the political attitude of a journalist...

One's political opinion may have a deeper impact in the actual writing or reporting of the story, but if they are proper journalists, they will report the bare facts without any colourful language (in print) or biased intentions.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
IMSNBC leans to the left, and while they creatively edit their stories, most of what they say is true. They rarely outright lie.

That's funny.

Mika Brzezinski, Al Sharpton, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Rachael Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Martin Brashhir .... Dylan Ratigan photoshopping Sara Palin pictures ... Melissa Harris-Perry mocking Mitt Romney's family adopting a black child .... etc etc .... if these idiots don't smack of absurdity then nothing does.

Forbes - MSNBC The Most Opinionated Cable News Channel By Far

If you’re like most cable news viewers, you probably think the channel you favor has a monopoly on the facts and the other ones are nothing more than a bunch of ranting. In fact, which cable network is the most opinionated is not a matter of opinion. It’s MSNBC.

A full 85% of the Comcast-owned network’s coverage can be classified as opinion or commentary rather than straight news, according to the authors of the Pew Research Center’s annual State of the News Media report. CNN and Fox News Channel, meanwhile, fall much closer to a 50/50 distribution, with Fox News skewing somewhat more heavily toward opinion.

MSNBC Official Tagline

What Progressives Have Been Waiting For.

MSNBC - only 15% of MSNBC is Actual Factual Reporting

In the Pew Research Center's 2013 "State of the News Media" report, MSNBC was found to be the most opinionated news network, with 85% of the content being commentary or opinions, and only 15% of the content being factual reporting. The report also stated that MSNBC spends the least amount of money producing its news, only $240 million in 2012, compared to CNN, which spent $682 million, and Fox, which spent $820 million.

25 Examples of MSNBC Race Baiting and Lies

Rachael Maddow Caugh Lying about Koch Brothers

Politico - Is MSNBC Worse than Fox News

But see, that's the thing. Many of MSNBC's opinions aren't rooted in fact. Many of them are rooted in unfounded speculation. Melissa Harris-Perry's recent claim that Obamacare is a racially loaded term conceived of "by a group of wealthy white men who needed a way to put themselves above and apart from a black man" is based on... what? The fact that the term was first used by a woman? The fact that, from Reaganomics to Hillarycare, we've always ascribed names to signature policies and legislation?

MSNBCs Alternative Universe

“Biased” doesn’t cut it. To watch MSNBC for an afternoon is not so much to be given a slanted account of what is happening here in America, but instead to witness a series of discussions about current events in parallel America II... America II, as anyone who watches the channel will discover rather swiftly, hosts a supermajority of well-meaning multi-culti, progressive types whose foolproof plans for explosive economic growth, uniform social justice, and general human utopia are constantly being undone by a blossoming white-supremacist movement, split apart by neo-secessionists, and existentially threatened by traitors whose defining characteristic is a never-quite-explained hatred for progress. America II features no gray areas whatsoever: All local variation is apartheid, each and every identification requirement is the second coming of Jim Crow, all criticism of the government is sedition. It’s exhausting. ...

Perhaps the most startling thing about the network is that one doesn’t need to even infer or twist anything in order to wallow in the gratifying stupefaction that its hosts just said what they just said.... But with MSNBC, no such mendacity is necessary. No clever editing. No false contexts. One can just read the transcripts. They meant to say that. ... After all, what would one possibly add to Martin Bashir’s suggestions that someone should defecate in Sarah Palin’s mouth, that conservatives are using the acronym “IRS” as a stand-in for “n***er,” or that Ted Cruz is the “David Koresh” of the Republican party? What could be achieved by sexing up Chris Matthews’s conviction that tea partiers “still count blacks as three-fifths” of a person, or that the perpetrators of 9/11 “just have a different perspective”? What might a worker bee charged with feeding the outrage machine do to make more impressive Joy Reid’s asseveration that Republicans are “resentful” of “post-1964 America,” or to improve upon Ed Schultz’s faith that “God supports Obamacare,” or to render more absurd Michael Eric Dyson’s contention that Eric Holder is “the chief lawgiver” and the “Moses of our time”? ['/ex]

a reply to: FlyersFan

And yet, all of that is nothing compared to FOX's manipulation of the viewer. I'm not interested in posting a bunch of information that proves they lie, scheme and even use mind control, but it's out there if you're interested.

I DID say that ALL of them have an agenda and are "entertainnews" so I'm not sure why you think you have to point it out yet again.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
And yet, all of that is nothing compared to FOX's manipulation of the viewer.

In your opinion.

I DID say that ALL of them have an agenda and are "entertainnews" so I'm not sure why you think you have to point it out yet again.

You said they don't lie. And yet, obviously they do. So ... it got pointed out that they do. That's how ATS rolls ... when someone posts something that isn't true, then others will post information to correct that.

a reply to: beezzer

Know what kills me about Fox? It's all the members of Congress that keep showing up. I mean, is it really important that we know exactly what our elected representatives have to say about current events that are shaping our future lives?

Bill O'Reilly and 0bama seemed to get along really well. Don't you think Fox should be giving the Prez equal airtime? It's like they're intentionally shutting him up. Maybe that's why he seems to dislike Fox. Those evil Fox employees keep manufacturing phony scandals and never let poor 0bama have the opportunity to set the record straight.

And that guy Jay Carney ... did you see how Ed Henry was always asking him the hardest questions? I think the other networks got tired of it, and when they asked Jay the same type question (presumably just to shut the Fox guy up) ... he quits.

I don't know. I don't like the way Fox keeps changing up its web site format and all the damn 30 second commercials and flash crap. On the positive side, it leaves me with more time on ATS, where real news analysis takes place.

True Fox often "pedals fear, lies and garbage and serves it to it's patrons." but consider that Liberals are all watching MSNBC,CNN,CBS,NBC while slack-jawed and drooling at their " fear (mongering, lies and garbage ." Let us not forget that the Liberal media are also Obama worshiping , Israel hating, Race-Baiting fools!

originally posted by: FlyersFan
In your opinion.

Of course it's my opinion! Who else's opinion would I be writing here????

You said they don't lie.

I did not. You'll have to read more carefully.

That's how ATS rolls ... when someone posts something that isn't true, then others will post information to correct that.

And that's what I just did.

Fox is almost as manipulative as any one of the following: MSNBC, CNN, NBC,. Fox is actually amateurish when it omes to Race-Baiting, sensationalism, manipulation and editing of 911 calls to incite riots.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
I did not. You'll have to read more carefully.

Ah okay ... you got me ... You didn't say 'they don't lie' ... you said 'they rarely lie'.
Sorry ... but that's not true either. They lie and bait all the time.
Fox/MSNBC = Same/same Two sides of the same coin.
CNN, on the other hand, seems to be really trying to clean up their act.

Caution: These statements are my opinion...

I think it's funny that people say CNN and NBC, etc are liberal or left-leaning. Just because they don't spew hatred for Obama and everything on the left; just because they're not like FOX, they're seen as being in the pocket of this administration. In actuality, they're pretty neutral compared to FOX and MSNBC.

a reply to: nickaponzi

IMHO - CNN isn't as bad as FOX or MSNBC. They were really bad during the Clinton years and got their nickname - CNN "Clinton News Network" .. but lately they have moved more towards the center.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I also said they creatively edit and lean to the left. I don't trust them any more than I trust FOX. I used to, but it's getting pretty bad these days with Ed and Al going overboard to the left. They display a lot of intolerance of ANYTHING conservative. I do like Rachel and a couple others, but the channel itself, I have lost most of my interest in.

They're not much better than FOX, but they're certainly not worse (just my opinion).

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
We probably agree that CNN is the 'least worst'.
Still can't blindly trust them ... but are 'least worst'.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
We probably agree that CNN is the 'least worst'.
Still can't blindly trust them ... but are 'least worst'.

That is like being the tallest midget.

a reply to: sheepslayer247 If you want to see what Fox viewers are like, just go look at the comments on most political stories. I have never seen such racist crap in my life! Not saying all their viewers are like this, but the majority that post comments sure are.

It's rather disgusting!