Aljazeera, maybe not such a reliable source.

I would like some proof that FOX is 100% Biased. I have been watching it for a while and I am quite aware of all the view points. I have not seen them blatently lie. Somebody give me some quotes please. I decided to trust Bush ( I admit, that may have been a mistake). To be honest, I think FOX had a slightly Pro-American tone, however Al-Jazeera also had a slightly Anti-American tone. On both websites however I saw all the same stories. I agree though, the middle ground is often the right ground.

Of course its not a reliable source its pro -muslim.

Originally posted by Spiricy
If it's called news, it should be news. Otherwise, it should broadcast on the propaganda channel.

here's a problem, how to define "bias" in the media? i find that 99.99% of the news is biased in some way or form. i find that some reports are carefully worded so as to APPEAR to be neutral but are not. those who actually pay attention to what they are being told notice these things and know how to weed out the BS from what we might call the news. most reports are pretty obvious to everyone except the sheeple which are many.

Originally posted by Gazrok
Al Jazeera? Biased? Man, that's like saying politicians are crooked.....

What part of "zionist imperalistic American policy" was the first clue???

Sure Al-Jazeera is biased, but they dont lie. Or at least they dont lie much, US and UK are just pissed at them cause they show the truht.. they show dead arab children killed by US/UK/Israel and they show US troops killed/captured, they show/play Saddams and Osamas tapes, thats why Al-Jazeera is so "evil".. US sensure has no affect on them, that is why US MILITARY ends up SHOOTING CAMERA MEN etc, and CLAIMS TROOPS MISTOOK CAMERA FOR A WEAPON, no man.. that is revenge as US CANT STAND THE TRUHT.. sadly so..

www.aljazeera.net...

Originally posted by FULCRUM

Originally posted by Gazrok
Al Jazeera? Biased? Man, that's like saying politicians are crooked.....

What part of "zionist imperalistic American policy" was the first clue???

Sure Al-Jazeera is biased, but they dont lie. Or at least they dont lie much, US and UK are just pissed at them cause they show the truht.. they show dead arab children killed by US/UK/Israel and they show US troops killed/captured, they show/play Saddams and Osamas tapes, thats why Al-Jazeera is so "evil".. US sensure has no affect on them, that is why US MILITARY ends up SHOOTING CAMERA MEN etc, and CLAIMS TROOPS MISTOOK CAMERA FOR A WEAPON, no man.. that is revenge as US CANT STAND THE TRUHT.. sadly so..

www.aljazeera.net...

"dont lie much"????

the only thing a person has in this world is their word if you tell one lie that automatically makes everything you have said and will say suspect so one lie or a million lies makes no difference. so if they've lied even once, anything they report on is suspect and i wouldnt say they report the truth, they report what they want. just like every other news outlet.

the REAL truth is we dont know whats really going on over there since all the news we see is the news someone else wants us to see and because of this the opinions we form based on this "news" is skewed as the news we use to form our opinions is skewed.
so i am beyond tired of people on this board claiming to KNOW whats going on because of some report they saw on such and such news channel. thats jsut someone elses version of whats happened. if you really want to find out go there and see for yourself!

Ok, but there is still one b problem in your plan "if you really want to find out go there and see for yourself!".. You can possibly see and hear everything even if you are "there"..

Info that "there is war" should be enough for us that arent there, it tells us that there is HORRIBLE things happening.. details are not important..

Originally posted by FULCRUM
Ok, but there is still one b problem in your plan "if you really want to find out go there and see for yourself!".. You can possibly see and hear everything even if you are "there"..

Info that "there is war" should be enough for us that arent there, it tells us that there is HORRIBLE things happening.. details are not important..

guess you didnt like what i had to say. maybe you shouldnt be a walking advertisement for a lying news outlet like others do all too often.

and no we cant all get out there to see everything that goes on which brings up a good point i made before but you obviously missed....news is technically "second hand". someone else sees it and then after careful editing its "reported" to us. so like i said before what you see on TV is someone elses version of what happened but that doesnt mean thats how things happened. which leads back to my "always be suspect" point.

i'm surprised you didnt see this connection....now you do. hopefully you learned something.

The reason Aljazeera is opened to biased more so than US news is the lack of competitive watchdogs. In the US, for years this was the case with the "Big 3" NBC, ABC, CBS which took a more liberal slant and anyone who presented anything to the contrary didn't have the scope or audience to get a widespread awareness.

That all changed with FoxNews. Now, I know they present a side that a lot of you all out there hate so there is no need to respond with an insult attack because in this post, I'm not advocating nor advertising for FoxNews.

I'm simply describing the news environment we currently have in the US. Its these two opposing view points.. liberal and conservative that "watchdog" each other that defines which country has the most reliable news. If FoxNews runs something totally false and without merit, the "Big 3" pounce on it and FoxNews is discredited. It also works vice-versa so while the commentators may get through with their slant on things, the actual news has to be pretty much congruent otherwise they each end up and expose' on the competitior's programming.

Remember NBC and the GM motors gas tank explosion story? Turns out they were using incindiary devices to trigger the explosions? That , I think , was the turning point when America decided it needed a voice from both sides. Its like two kids on a teeter-totter. They balence each other out. In societies like Iraq, Iran, ect..there are no alternatives.

ThePrankMonkey.. i wasnt mocking your post, i just tryed to point out the fact that really nobody knows the TRUHT about anything.. even those who see things happen by their own eyes, it is just their OWN perception of the things.. not real the truht..

Originally posted by FULCRUM
ThePrankMonkey.. i wasnt mocking your post, i just tryed to point out the fact that really nobody knows the TRUHT about anything.. even those who see things happen by their own eyes, it is just their OWN perception of the things.. not real the truht..

aha! so you do know the truth. good!

now lets see if others catch on to this concept....

Langolier: "I would like some proof that FOX is 100% Biased. I have been watching it for a while and I am quite aware of all the view points. I have not seen them blatently lie. Somebody give me some quotes please. I decided to trust Bush ( I admit, that may have been a mistake). To be honest, I think FOX had a slightly Pro-American tone, however Al-Jazeera also had a slightly Anti-American tone. On both websites however I saw all the same stories. I agree though, the middle ground is often the right ground."

As someone said already, most news organizations are biased in some way, you need to pick your news from different sources and compare (see what they leave out and see what they focus on). ESPECIALLY on TV, since they have about 3 minutes to tell the story, so a lot of stuff gets edited out.

Here's an awesome article on Fox News Bias, they are pretty much the laughingstock of the world media.

www.fair.org...

"The Most Biased Name in News
Fox News Channel's extraordinary right-wing tilt"

Really long but very informative.

"The abundance of conservatives and Republicans at Fox News Channel does not seem to be a coincidence. In 1996, Andrew Kirtzman, a respected New York City cable news reporter, was interviewed for a job with Fox and says that management wanted to know what his political affiliation was. "They were afraid I was a Democrat," he told the Village Voice (10/15/96). When Kirtzman refused to tell Fox his party ID, "all employment discussion ended," according to the Voice. "...

..."Gallagher then introduced a series of stories about one conservative cause after another: from white firefighters suing Boston's fire department for discrimination, to sawmill workers endangered by Clinton-Gore environmental regulations (without comment from a single supporter of the rules), to property owners who feel threatened by an environmental agreement "signed by President Clinton in 1992." (The agreement was actually signed by George Bush the elder, who was president in 1992--though that didn't stop Fox from using news footage of a smiling Bill Clinton proudly signing an official document that was supposed to be, but wasn't, the environmental pact in question.)"

"Former CBS producer Don Dahler resigned from Fox after executive John Moody ordered him to change a story to play down statistics showing a lack of social progress among blacks. (Moody says the change was journalistically justified--New York, 11/17/97.) According to the Columbia Journalism Review (3-4/98), "several" former Fox employees "complained of 'management sticking their fingers' in the writing and editing of stories to cook the facts to make a story more palatable to right-of-center tastes." Said one: "I've worked at a lot of news organizations and never found that kind of manipulation." "

And tons of good stuff like that.

I tend to watch network news very critically. A perfect example was the way CNN and FOX and ABC and NBC handled the Iraqi Invasion.

When they had "analysts" they were mostly retired Generals talking about military strategies. Um, a little bit of a bias there.

When they would show anti-war protests, they marginalized them (Wolf Blitzer even called them hippies).

Personally, I found the best coverage to be CBC Newsworld (yeah, I'm Canadian, so I may be a little biased, but they would cite US media reports and then UK media reports and they would ASK QUESTIONS).

Anyway, never believe what any media outlet says without turning your own critical eye to it. Stay informed and keep asking questions.

jakomo

Now, I don't think anyone here is saying that American News organizations are unbiased toward America, the country. Its true that a great deal of national pride still does abound here even from those less than satisfied by current events. So, if you're waiting on US news orgs. to begin running stories portraying those terrorist who's every waking moment is the destruction of the US, as the victims, I would suggest some light reading while you wait..maybe "War and Peace" because even though I see the US finally having some balance in terms of the liberal / conservative agenda, I don't ever foresee a balance of voice for those whos goal is genocide of our people and the downfall of our country. Sorry but lets be realistic. Thats just taking this PC thing to the point where we are forced to be tolerant of others who are intolerant of us. Two words "Hell No!"

They dont show ads, chebob? Like hell BBC dont! They had all sorts of Ads running on BBC when I was there! Someone is feedin yall a line of crap! And they still soak you 116 quid a year for it!

I will say again ALL news is Biased. Arab news too, i have seen it. I disagree with masked avatar on this one:

Fox:10
Aljazeera:10

Its simply opposite bias, thats all.

Fox news IS VERY biased. I mean, frighteningly so, I see some of thier commentators interviewing persons woith opposite views cut them off and not really let em express thier point of view. Fox news has a heavy conservative bias, which makes it unique amongst the media, because most media here has more a liberal Bias. Perhaps thats why so many Americans watch it. Liberal ideas alienate us.

BBC also is pretty Biased, tho not as bad as Fox. I have seen it. Its, as prank said, worded neutrally, but what is shown and the tone of the broadcast is hardly neutral. I remeber them showing a little bite on Anti French sentiment in the US, and basically, all they did was show a bunch of beer gut yokels screaming Bush propoganda, which will make Americans look more and more like ignorant flag waving biggots. They did not show the other half, people who hate Bush and hardly feel like boycotting anyone. They said people are now calling it "freedom toast" and "freedom fries" (has anyone here in the US started this trend? anytime I go to a burger joint, they still are called french fries, I still see frozen french toast). Bad reporting. People in UK really believed we started this sudden name change. I informed them I was yet to see it anywhere.

Anyway, all media is biased and acnnot be trusted worth #. Thats why you have to take several different biases to get the small pieces of truth they carry. Or, harder yet, you simply have tp be there yourself to see.

... as a couter-balnace to our 'liberal media'. There is no Liberal Media finding a home on any of the mass distributed, corporate owned news empire rings.

Back to the thread, I think it refereshing within the article that they included the disclaimer:

"....as a further effort to tarnish their name � especially given that the intelligence agency documents are controlled by Ahmed Chalabi�s Iraqi National Congress, and by the CIA.
And of course under Saddam Hussein it was virtually impossible for a news organisation trying to work in Iraq not to have some sort of contact with the security apparatus. "

Even though it was at the end of the article, it still is something that would not be mentioned in the US corporate media.

I would not be guilty of any such thing especially since I have no idea what a couter-balnace is.

counter balance

(* Administrative Assistant does all my important typing! )

I know BT. Just funnin' with ya. Actually, if you take a look at the collected works of Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, or Alan Combs, you'll find that liberal views are well represented on the network news...and I have no real problem with that. The problem I have is with those who want "only one " point of view. Thats where we get into problems with the press and reliability. Fox News might make you sick but it does serve it's purpose and we should not advocate its sensor for political disagreement. Remember that pesky ole Constitution that gives the libs the right to free press also gives the cons the same as well. If you don't like them, turn that switch but don't be guilty of making that decision for anyone else.

While a talking head might present some stories with a liberal lean, it approaches no where near the Fox format.
Brokaw, Jennings, et al have all been scripted like every other Disney/Viacom/GE/News Network corporate payrollee.
If there is constitutional fair play to be applied towards one group, it would be the liberals. Else, the American "News" media is clearly speaking with one voice, one script...and Karl Rove is playing the role of Editor in Chief.

You, evidently have knowledge or information I'm not privy to.

Are you advocating making anything you deem conservative illegal and making the liberal voice the one lone news source. How, then could we be sure we are getting any more accurate news unless you party loyalty has made your trsut blind? How, then are we different from a totalitarian socialist regime?

[Edited on 25-8-2003 by astrocreep]

Originally posted by astrocreep
You, evidently have knowledge or information I'm not privy to.

Are you advocating making anything you deem conservative illegal and making the liberal voice the one lone news source. How, then could we be sure we are getting any more accurate news unless you party loyalty has made your trsut blind? How, then are we different from a totalitarian socialist regime?

[Edited on 25-8-2003 by astrocreep]

Of course not. As to the knowledge I'm privy to, it's right in front of your eyes if you choose to watch a diversity of outlets.
I am not pro-liberal, as I am not anti-conservative. But to speak of the FoxNews network in the same category as McNeil-Leherer report or BBC Nightly News, is a tremendous stretch, something along the lines of magnitude like calling Bush a statesman.
But please, follow the money. Follow the stated poli-cotributions of the network brass. Follow the giddyness of the young Mr.Powell appointment. Count , on less than two hands worth of fingers, the number of global media corporations.
That the advertising dollar + the stock price is the precusor of the news content speaks volumes for our current state of affairs.

In an unrelated point - if we had "liberal" news outlets, wouldn't "conservative" be one of the hues acknowledged, since those pesky liberals have to have an all inclusion clause to maintain the "liberal" label, whereas "conservative" is not hampered by that ?

As to conspiracy.....did anyone else go from having C-Span/C-Span 2/C-Span 3.....to just having C-Span? I'm an AOL/Time Warner cable subscriber.
(I'm a huge C-Span fan, BTW)