It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FOX NEWS: We Report, You Decide

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   
It's not funny when you see your husband nodding his head in agreement almost every night when he watches the channel...
I watch is no and then but easily become appalled at what I hear.
They are definitely republican, but claim to be fair. They are as hypocritical as the liberals are and use the same double edged sword as the liberals do, but claim they are fair/honest...

But, usually liars mean the opposite of what they mean...




posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   
I think Fox News is actually getting better. While watching a program on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts I was actively looking for pro-right bias and found none. The host of the discussion even said it would be wrong for Roberts not to disclose his views on abortion (a typically left-wing stance, I believe.) I constantly have my ears tuned for propaganda and I find it harder to notice than 1-2 years ago. Perhaps their core audience is changing and Fox is changing with it.

I personally don't see any bias in NPR News at all. Some of their documentary style programming is left-leaning, but thats not news. Same with CNN or MSNBC.

To my conservative family members, the reporting of verifiable facts is "liberal" if it disagrees with their ideologies.

BTW, I am sick of hearing the media being called liberal controlled.

If it was controlled by liberals then why didn't they cover up for Clinton instead of going after his head? Media corporations are big businesses, and big businesses, in my limited experience, tend to be controlled by conservatives.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ray Davies
I think Fox News is actually getting better. While watching a program on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts I was actively looking for pro-right bias and found none. The host of the discussion even said it would be wrong for Roberts not to disclose his views on abortion (a typically left-wing stance, I believe.) I constantly have my ears tuned for propaganda and I find it harder to notice than 1-2 years ago. Perhaps their core audience is changing and Fox is changing with it.

Media corporations are big businesses, and big businesses, in my limited experience, tend to be controlled by conservatives.



Perhaps their audience isn't changing but rather the same as it was 1-2 yrs ago, and don't feel the need to be 'right' winged all the time since the elections are over....



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Well what did you all expect from Rupert Murdoch, Australians like me know not to trust anything he puts out, he is a decendant of the Australian "squatocracy" of landowners who just settled on the best lands without paying and just sat back and got rich. None of them are true Australians and we were not a bit surprised when he moved to the states.

Rupert Murdoch......

YOU LOSE YOUR AUSTRALIAN PRIVILEGES!!!



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
The average newspaper(or media), especially of the better sort, has the intelligence of a hillbilly evangelist, the courage of a rat, the fairness of a prohibitionist boob-jumper, the information of a high-school janitor, the taste of a designer of celluloid valentines, and the honor of a police-station lawyer.
Quoted in "Review of 'The Brass Check,' requoted. The American Guardian, June 21, 1941."



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   
I remember that when Murdoch started buying up newspapers here in the early 1980s, may journalists quite in protest over what a scumbag he was the blatant editorial bias he was openly planning on bringing to the papers. Now, he controsl a huge portion of the meida, both print and electronic, and the bias is even more evident than ever, but with the added twist that they deny it is even there and simply claim to be "balanced." In less than 20 years, we've gone from real journalism that wanted nothing to do with pushing a right-wing agenda, to a full-time right-wing agenda that denies it has any bias at all---this is truly Orweliian, and it is fair to say that Fox News is basically a privately-owned mouthpiece for the Bush administration that serves the same function in this counry that Pravda used to in the USSR. It's the official state mouthpiece, the only difference between it and Pravda of the USSR vintage is that Murdoch gets to get rich off this, while Pravda was state-owned.
---Ryan



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Ryan
About right/left bias.

If a format is not right wing it is left wing? Before you try to play through without anyone noticing ...where is it written that right wing bias is wrong and only left wing bias is middle of the road. Ryan ..think before you post and look for a free pass to play through. What sells in Austraulia may not necessarily sell here in America.
I will tell you this...while I dont agree with much of what Fox news posts on its networks..I am well aware that the media has had the field to itself for years without any competition. Now that they have comeptition they show their true colours and whine. I dont have much respect for that no matter from whom it comes.

Get a clue people..the media has become opinion making ..not necessarily news reporting. The media has become reinforcing of stereotyping not necessarily news reporting. And this is from both sides..not one side. The rampant emotionalism and baiting coming from the "Leaders" in New Orleans after this hurricane is proof of this ..when nothing else works...or you are unable to make it work...uses stereotyping. It has degenerated into stereo typing. Sickening to me. This is not leadership..it is whining just like the media. I get very tired of this from both sides of the fence..making me wonder what is the matter with both viewpoints.

And Ray Davies...during the Clinton Administration...the media could not ...not report what was happening. They did not necessarily go for his head because it was obvious that for many of the major networks ..Clinton was their man.
Remember what I said...they could not ...not report what was happening...
The way it was handled by them was to post poll after poll after poll after poll.....after poll......ad naseum.
The "whoredom" the major networks were doing ..and openly participating in was by poll results. When the whole thing was over...and the results by poll were achieved ...the polls almost immediately dissappeared from view. The polls had accomplished what they were intended to do. This is politicial whoredom of the first magnitude by the media itself. Many Americans are aware of this ..but it is not spoken for what it is because one day again ..the polls will be needed to sway American opinion ..once more. This is not balanced or fair..get a clue!! This is the selling and seducing of the American soul by polls for purposes of political bias. At no other time in American history do I recall the obvious bias of the American media. Even today.


Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I have a couple of questions, orangetom, with all due respect. Where in my post do I say that left-wing bias is okay and right-wing is not? I do not personally subscribe to the idea that the media has a left-wing bias, to be honest. I think most bias in the media is pro-coprorate more than anything else, since the media has increasingly become a mouthpiece for the multinational corporations who own it. Of necessity, any real "left" slant in the media is pretty well gone, if it ever was there, since corporate itnerests are certainly more right-leaning, at least in economic terms. I think Fox News is blatantly right-wing, absolutely---the fact they calim to be "fair and balanced" is a joke even to most conservatives. Anyway, if you can find where I said that left-wing bias is okay and right-wing is not, I will happily stand corrected, but I don't see a statement like that anywhere. I did say the media has shifted to the right as a whole, and I definitely beleive that to be true.
Another question I have is when you say that the media "could not" report on what was going on in the Clinton years because he was "their man." If you could pelas illustrate your point with an example I would appreciate it, since my memory is different. I seem to remember that in the Clinton eyars, whenever he actually tried to do something different---national health care, allowing gays in the military, moving toward detente in the middle east---the common tactic was to salm him in the media until, wimp that he was, he would just back off. If you have an example of something they "could not " report about, I would love to hear it, since from where I am sitting, it seems like Bush is getting a much bigger free ride from the media than Clinton ever did . Again, that's just my perspective, but I've heard it voiced by otehrs, as well, and I'm happy to stand corrected, again, if you can give me some concrete examples of where the media backed off on Clinton and gave him a pass.
As a quick example, let's compare two infamous statements: when Clinton wagged his finger and said he didn't have sexual relations with "that woman," it was played endlessly---still is, you see it on TV every couple of weeks in some context or other. Now, when Bush was asked about his relationship with Ken Lay, he said "Ken who?" and then claimed, even more preposterously, that he had never heard of the guy! This was a case of Bush lying to the press and the country every bit as much as Clinton, since he and Lay had been friends for years and Lay was his NUMBER ONE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTOR of all time, for his races as Governor AND President. They golfed together and exchanged Christmas cards ("Kenny Boy," remember?), so how come Bush'S "Ken who?" comment is never ---or very seldom---replayed? Why hasn't he been forced to admit he was lying, as Clinton had to do? In my opinion, that is a point worth considering by anyone who claims the media to have a "liberal" bias.
My intention here is not to be argumentative or start trouble or dimish what you said, I would just like some examples so that you can back up what you say if it is, indeed, accurate.
---Ryan

[edit on 7-9-2005 by RyanC]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join