Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

FOX Unfair and Far From Balanced.

page: 3
54
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightbringr

Originally posted by strings0305
Anyone who watches Fox needs to remember this one thing: They fought for the right to lie on air, to the American people... And won. air.

Untrue.

Jane Akre sued Fox because they wouldnt allow her to run her report as was written. In the end, its up to the station what they want to run. After looking over the wikipedia account of this issue, it does not appear to me they were ever asked to lie, only to omit details and add others.

Yeah...THAT'S CALLED "LYING"!!! If you do that in court it's called "perjury" and you go to prison.

Unbelievable people. Just unbelievable.



In the end, Jane actually won over $400,000 in damages from Fox. Again, its a privately run company,


No...Fox News ISN'T a private company. You know when a company stops being "private"? When it becomes "public". I'm all for Roofing Contractor Bob being able to do whatever he wants to do with his business. It's his. It's private. However, when you are traded on the public stock exchanges, and is blatantly in the business of affecting government, public opinion, and politics...then it's no longer "private"..because it AFFECTS ALL OF US. Just like politically active church's dodging out on paying taxes because they are allegedly "non-profit". NONSENSE. Sure...the Amish still have churches where they simply meet to practice their religious rituals...but that's about it. Any other church I can think of is up to their balls with either the Right or the Left. That's not a "religion" anymore...it's paid advertising and needs to be taxed as such.

In a similar fashion, I expect that if a "news" organization wants wholesale power to lie, deceive, and divide America as it sees fit they should at the very least have to have the words "This is a paid advertisement" on the screen just like we make the "Sham-Wow!" guy do for HIS infomercial.

There needs to be some honest disclosure so that people at least KNOW they are consuming lies and don't treat them as "fact". Conversely, if the "news" channels don't want to have the words "This is a Paid Advertisement" flashing on the screen they should then be free to do so, so long as they keep the opinion, commentary, "analysis" and spin to themselves and JUST STICK TO REPORTING WHAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED.

You know...kind of like Cronkite and Murrow used to do. It's not impossible. We did it successfully on TV in this country for around 30 years or so. We could do it again...if we bothered to try, that is.




posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I watched FOX for years. It was my favorite station. For one thing it had the best camera work.

I watched it until it became too ridiculous to listen to.

If you like Carnival Barkers - - enticing you and telling you what you want to hear.

By all means - - watch FOX "entertainment".



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Fair and Balanced - All the news that fit to report - un-biased - objective - truthful.

Need we say more? Methinks not..............


BTW - here's Bill O'Reilly in his younger daze when he was "unfair and unbalanced" .....We used to call such persons "Rage Freaks" ......my my how he's mellowed since then

edit on 2-11-2012 by Vitruvian because: ROAD RAGE



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
As a former FoxNews robot, I have to say that Fox has a lockdown on propaganda, lies and suggestion. They constantly repeat key phrases and rhetoric so that it gets burnt into the minds and conversations of their viewers.

Let's not forget their expert use of neuro-linguistic programming.

Some people may think there is some "entertainment value" in FoxNews, but they seem to be the same people that have the FoxNews agenda subliminally entrenched into their political views. Literally, they do not understand that their way of thinking and value system is being altered by the constant bombardment of lies and propaganda.

That being said, MSNBC is probably the best station to watch for factual reporting. They do have an anti-NeoCon agenda, but they are committed to using real data and facts.

FoxNews.....you're lucky they don't lie about their real names.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
@ nightbringr: I see what you're getting at; no I don't think the government should be in charge of regulating them - HAHAHA, it's the governments' lies they are selling us.
It's pretty hard for people to think for themselves when/if they don't realize that they aren't.


I do like this comment/idea though:

@milomindbender: "At the very least, the right and left punditry alike needs to have the words "this is a paid advertisement" on the screen just like we require TV infomercials to have. Better though would be for full disclosure of WHO those paid advertisers are so at least people are made aware of what sort of toxic waste they are consuming."



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder
Unbelievable people. Just unbelievable.

Giving selective information is not lying. Its deceitful, but not lying.

Originally posted by milominderbinder
No...Fox News ISN'T a private company. You know when a company stops being "private"? When it becomes "public".

Fair enough, i should not have said "private" i should have said "non-government owned". A corporation still can and will have bias. Do you think liberals are going to buy into Fox? Again, the government should not mandate what they do or do not run.

Originally posted by milominderbinder
In a similar fashion, I expect that if a "news" organization wants wholesale power to lie, deceive, and divide America as it sees fit they should at the very least have to have the words "This is a paid advertisement" on the screen just like we make the "Sham-Wow!" guy do for HIS infomercial.

I guess in the same way we put a "do not drink" label on cyanide? Im sorry, i thought people should be smarter than believing everything they read or listen to. Yeah, we shouldnt take responsibility for our actions or beliefs, after all the media tells us what to believe, right?



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
How anyone can claim the liberal press doesn't cover for Obama is beyond me.

Seriously who do you think you are fooling, by now what do you hope to gain from four more years of Obama?

Really?

Is your life better?
Mine isn't , nothing changes.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


As stated (probably) before, with FOX on one side and ABC., NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, PBS on the other, it IS balanced.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247

That being said, MSNBC is probably the best station to watch for factual reporting. They do have an anti-NeoCon agenda, but they are committed to using real data and facts.



I've tried all the major news stations and less known stations and foreign news. Foreign news (especially German) is really pretty good.

But I seem to always come back to MSNBC. For one reason they speak normal. They're not so "in your face" like FOX is.

FOX is like "rapid fire assault".

MSNBC gives me time to think about what they're saying and compare them to other perspectives.

Even on XM radio - - I try to listen to both Left and Right - - and some other news shows. I find the Right's "in your face - rapid fire assault" approach affects you emotionally - - - it does get you all fired up. I can see how a person can be taken in by it.

I prefer to think for myself.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
@nightbringr: "I guess in the same way we put a "do not drink" label on cyanide? Im sorry, i thought people should be smarter than believing everything they read or listen to. Yeah, we shouldnt take responsibility for our actions or beliefs, after all the media tells us what to believe, right?"


Hahahaha! Yes! People ARE that stupid! They DO need labels.
They DO believe what the media tells them!
Look at this thread- acknowledging that Fox are liars, but defending the other stations...

(Sorry if I've just by proxy called y'all stupid...)

edit on 2-11-2012 by curiouscanadian777 because: add comment
edit on 2-11-2012 by curiouscanadian777 because: attribute quote



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
The only thing that I would like to point out is that the graphic in the OP is a bit misleading. Yes, foxnews may have only shown 3 mins of Obama's speech versus 26 mins of Romney's speech, but they are under no obligation to provide full speeches. At most, they are obligated to offer equal airtime and that is even questionable since they are a cable channel. They still have the rest of the day to balance the bars in your graph.

Show me the times from yesterday or the day before...right now, the OP is giving incomplete data, which is a little hypocritical considering their complaint.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
So what? Are you capable of thinking for yourself or do you just believe any tripe Fox, CNN or anything else shoves down your throat? Do you suggest the goverment tell private businesses how to run themselves?
No. I'm suggesting that Fox News ISN'T a "private business". If Murdoch is OK with using the public's money to make himself rich...then he ALSO has an obligation back to the public. And the same with ANY publicly traded company in my opinion. This nonsense of comparing the Exxon-Mobile's of the world to uncle Ralph's auto shop has GOT to stop. Uncle Ralph's business is "private". Exxon-Mobile has hired a standing army of mercenaries...we can't continue to treat them both the same way or legally consider them to be even REMOTELY similar entities.


As a business owner myself, i want the government to butt the hell out of my business.

Agreed. I don't care what you do with your coffee shop or whatever it is anyways. Making a comparison between whatever it is that you own and operate and a company like Fox News or defense contractor General Electric (which owns NBC) is INSANE.


Originally posted by milominderbinder
You have GOT to be kidding me. Why do we need someone telling us what we should know by the time we are 14? I, unlike you, want the goverment to butt the hell out of my life, not control us more.

You don't. That's why it poses a serious conflict of interest when organizations posing as the "news" are in bed with politicians, lobbyists, defense contractors, and every other special interest group on planet earth.
Let them say whatever they want to. However, any programming that features anything other than reporting more or less the cold, hard, facts like WE USED TO DO in this country should AT LEAST come with a warning label. I can certainly tell the difference between punditry and fact...but I'm the exception not the rule.

An IQ of 100 is the arithmetic mean...the middle of the road in terms of intelligence. However...in the 1970's Koko the talking gorilla scored in the low '90's on IQ tests. Granted...Koko was an EXCEPTIONALLY clever Great Ape...but there is about 40% of the human population that functions at or below Koko's level in understanding abstraction and being able to think critically in order to problem solve.

That should pretty much tell us all we need to know....it's just plain dangerous to not require that propaganda (whether from the Right OR the Left) comes with a warning label on it.
edit on 2-11-2012 by milominderbinder because: formatting



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Lies don't balance anything out.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by beezzer
 


Lies don't balance anything out.


True.

But opinions appear to.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
MSNBC really is more partisan than Fox, according to Pew study
How does Comcast allow such wretched bias in presidential coverage?
ww.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/z-on-tv-blog/bal-pew-study-suggests-msnbc-really-is-more-partisan-than-fox-20121102,0,7266571.story


ON MSNBC, the ratio of negative to positive stories on GOP candidate Mitt Romney was 71 to 3.


and:


The ratio of negative to positive stories in Fox's coverage of President Obama was 46 to 6.


Whose is the bigger propaganda machine?



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
You can't slam one outlet and conveniently ignore the others.

In this corner we have a right leaning news channel, doing great in the ratings.
In that corner we have CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, plus a few others, moderating debates and baby sitting for Obama, yet not doing so well in the ratings.

What does that tell you?



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
You can't slam one outlet and conveniently ignore the others.

In this corner we have a right leaning news channel, doing great in the ratings.
In that corner we have CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, plus a few others, moderating debates and baby sitting for Obama, yet not doing so well in the ratings.

What does that tell you?




IMO.

Republicans only watch one channel.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
MSNBC really is more partisan than Fox, according to Pew study


I suggest who is really interested in facts - - read the actual Pew report in full. Not a selective slanted report on the Pew report.


November 2, 2012 - - Both Candidates Received More Negative than Positive Coverage in Mainstream News, but Social Media Was Even Harsher www.journalism.org...

edit on 2-11-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Anyone who doesn't admit that Fox News is Mitt Romney election headquarters has something wrong with them.

I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry when I hear someone say "at least Fox tells the truth".



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
You can't slam one outlet and conveniently ignore the others.

In this corner we have a right leaning news channel, doing great in the ratings.
In that corner we have CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, plus a few others, moderating debates and baby sitting for Obama, yet not doing so well in the ratings.

What does that tell you?


It tells us that sensationalism and sex sells. Only on FoxNews can you get a biased slant to any story while some blonde bimbo tries real hard to convince you that she actually knows what the hell she is talking about!

You know Fox is real bad when Al Jazeera has a better reputation of being factual and impartial.





new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution