The Most Biased Name In News: Fox News, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 6-12-2002 @ 02:57 PM by Bout Time
The Most Biased Name in News
Fox News Channel's extraordinary right-wing tilt
By Seth Ackerman

"I challenge anybody to show me an example of bias in Fox News Channel."
--Rupert Murdoch (Salon, 3/1/01)

"Years ago, Republican party chair Rich Bond explained that conservatives' frequent denunciations of "liberal bias" in the media were part of "a strategy" (Washington Post, 8/20/92). Comparing journalists to referees in a sports match, Bond explained: "If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time."

But when Fox News Channel, Rupert Murdoch's 24-hour cable network, debuted in 1996, a curious thing happened: Instead of denouncing it, conservative politicians and activists lavished praise on the network. "If it hadn't been for Fox, I don't know what I'd have done for the news," Trent Lott gushed after the Florida election recount (Washington Post, 2/5/01). George W. Bush extolled Fox News Channel anchor Tony Snow--a former speechwriter for Bush's father--and his "impressive transition to journalism" in a specially taped April 2001 tribute to Snow's Sunday-morning show on its five-year anniversary (Washington Post, 5/7/01). The right-wing Heritage Foundation had to warn its staffers not to watch so much Fox News on their computers, because it was causing the think tank's system to crash.

When it comes to Fox News Channel, conservatives don't feel the need to "work the ref." The ref is already on their side. Since its 1996 launch, Fox has become a central hub of the conservative movement's well-oiled media machine. Together with the GOP organization and its satellite think tanks and advocacy groups, this network of fiercely partisan outlets--such as the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and conservative talk-radio shows like Rush Limbaugh's--forms a highly effective right-wing echo chamber where GOP-friendly news stories can be promoted, repeated and amplified. Fox knows how to play this game better than anyone.

Yet, at the same time, the network bristles at the slightest suggestion of a conservative tilt. In fact, wrapping itself in slogans like "Fair and balanced" and "We report, you decide," Fox argues precisely the opposite: Far from being a biased network, Fox argues, it is the only unbiased network. So far, Fox's strategy of aggressive denial has worked surprisingly well; faced with its unblinking refusal to admit any conservative tilt at all, some commentators have simply acquiesced to the network's own self-assessment. FAIR has decided to take a closer look. "

www.fair.org...


reply posted on 6-12-2002 @ 05:05 PM by Bob88
Ok. Conservatives might have Fox. O'Reilly isnít a liberal, thatís for sure (though I might be wrong ñ he opposes the death penalty, whereas most conservatives support it so I hear). Greta was a CNN employee who came to fox. While at CNN she seemed to support Clinton (didnít think he should be impeached, etc). The Hannity and Colmes show speaks for itself. Of course WSJ may support republicans ñ itís a paper about money, capitalism and isnít going to support candidates that donít support what the journal stands for. I donít see the WSJ as being mass media like CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc ñ itís apples and oranges. Rush? Címon ñ same thing as WSJ ñ even more so. Rush isnít news ñ itís conservative commentary and quite honestly itís successful. (Why canít the left counter with a leftist/liberal talk show??? ñ wait, they have and they all fail). In reality ñ they do have a radio market: itís NPR. Which can only succeed with public funds.

So, while the conservatives may have fair and balanced Fox on their side the balance of the media is still tilted to the left. And if the WSJ editorial page is right leaning then what about the NY Times ñ their whole paper is left bias. Not to mention all the other so-called former democrats at the other outlets like CNN ñ they mention Tony Snow ñ but what about Chris Matthews, Russert, Phillips, George Stephanopoulos, Dan Rather (a Demsy fundraiser favorite), Katie Couric (secure.mediaresearch.org...) and the list goes on and on. Oh ñ howís Donahue doing these days.


reply posted on 7-12-2002 @ 12:43 PM by romantico
The media anymore is obviously right wing.Fox News does not even try to hide the fact that they are biased in their reporting & I dismiss anyone who gets their news from Fox.Thats like me saying I get my news from The Star or the Globe or the New York Post or Matt Drudge.The best place to get the news anymore is BBC or The Guardian.If you want to know whats going in the US,turn to the foreign press.Whenever I hear people talk about the "Liberal Media Myth", I always ask if this is the same 'Libera Media' that crucified Bill Clinton?The same 'Liberal Media' that dismiss all of George Bush's 'Bushisms' (as Jay Leno said,"Thats right.After 9/11 Bush became smart")Look at all those who own the press nowadays.Anyone can see for themselves that these CEO's are BIG supporters of the Republican Party(Rupert Murdoch probably the biggest)

I recently saw the movie "Mr.Smith Goes to Washington" A great movie!!!Anyway,even back then they were discussing the Corporate Media & how they owned all the press & controlled what the politicians 'THEY" supported had to say.All the Republicans I work with & most my family (who are Republicans) even say the Media is very conservative.I have no idia why the Right Wing gets so pissed off when thats pointed out to them.They should be proud,after all thats what they want.History repeats itself & this country is turning into Berlin,1939.Just read the book '1984' & this could have been written today.I'm sure I'll be crucified for saying this,but why are so mant Republicans so out of it when we refer to the media as being conservative?You own the AM radio waves,the house & Senate,why is the media any different?Isn't that the republican agenda?To control?To dismiss & discredit ANYONE who doesn't agree with the republican idias of what America should be?If you disagree w/Bush,your Anti-American & all of that.America should welcome idias that are different.I'm liberal & proud of it & enjoy nothing more than a civil debate w/those who have different idias than mine.Anymore,A magority of the Republicans I have encountered feel threatned & repulsed by those who are not conservative.

Anyway,didn't mean to go off on a rant.I'm new hear & have agreed w/those hear who are obviously republican on some issues in the past.The last thing I want is to get off on the wrong foot here,but I thought I'd just let some here know where I stand (cause I know where most here stand on most issues)Hopefully,this is a place where I can express myself w/out pissing people off.Anyways,this site isn't for everyone,but I found it pretty interesting beings its kind of the topic of choice here.

www.mediawhoresonline.com...

[Edited on 7-12-2002 by romantico]



reply posted on 10-12-2002 @ 04:06 AM by Estragon
Alas, letting Murdoch anywhere near a nation's media is not to be recommended -as any older reader of the London Times will know.
His rags print what sells and change according to location: here's a rather interesting tirade against the Vile One in the Ozzie media www.newaus.com.au...
where you'll see a directly opposite view of Murdoch from that being touted in the US scribble-market.
Newspaper and media owners are biased towards one thing only, to-day: their own wealth: and that generally involves identifying a lowest-common-denominator niche: if one lot support the Dems, support the GOP - you'll get about half the market.
It is largely true that the Reps kept quiet about the spineless US media during the Clinton era; but -then again -the media were seldom critical of anyone at that time.
Reps have a diffciult task with the media -on the one hand, the media is probably always on their side for purely capitalistic reasons: on the other hand, the media need to present this illusion of "independence" which means very often a "liberal" air: I don't imagine they give a damn what they publish as long as it sells more than anyone else sells.
And the Dems are big favourites among the vested interests who control the media ( probably because an air of liberalism helps disguise their greed)
One recalls GB1 trying to deal with pro-Israeli lobbyists and media hacks and getting a drubbing for it.
In truth, one would almost welcome a consistently biased source of news - at least one would have something that resembled a point of view.
In fact, one gets only sloppy "entertainment-value" cut and paste and insipid commentary sometimes sensationalised to the sort of degree of fake commitment and passion that one asociates with a sports commentator desperately trying to make a match sound entertaining - when it's awful -because that's what he's paid to do: regardless of the reality.

Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



DEA is Investigating Montana State Legislators Over State Laws
  Posted 12 days ago with 59 member flags
The CIA in Australia: America\'s Foreign Watergate
  Posted 2 days ago with 19 member flags
Who is really behind the birthers and what is their real motive?
  Posted 11 days ago with 11 member flags
ESF and Black op funding.
  Posted 10 days ago with 11 member flags
There is NO Media Bias in America
  Posted 10 days ago with 10 member flags