Fox News Remains the Singular Beacon of Fair & Balanced Journalism

Originally posted by Jamuhn
So...what does everyone think about CNN Headline News? They aren't biased....or are they?

Unlike the majority of opinions on this board I don't classify MSNBC,Fox, CNN, ABC, and the rest as Left or Right. It's usually the reporter or anchor or producer who has the bias and it reflects in the individual piece.

Let's take Fox for example. I find Shepard Smith to be fair and impartial. But John Gibson is so right and nasty at times he makes me cringe. CNN is equally guilty, Wolfe Blitzer I find to be fair, while Aaron Brown gets off on a liberal tangent and tends to editorialize.

Originally posted by Amuk
I think MSN is pretty fair, Joe Scarborough for example could hardly be called a liberal. They seem, to me at least, to TRY to show both sides. I am not saying they are the only truth, hell ALL of them are bias, but they seem to be the most fair of the bunch

I agree, MSNBC is the most balanced I've seen so far. And Scarborough has impressed me with how balanced he can be at times. I feel sorry for Combs on Hannity and Combs though...man is that guy whipped and outnumbered!

Originally posted by Bleys

Originally posted by Jamuhn
So...what does everyone think about CNN Headline News? They aren't biased....or are they?

Unlike the majority of opinions on this board I don't classify MSNBC,Fox, CNN, ABC, and the rest as Left or Right. It's usually the reporter or anchor or producer who has the bias and it reflects in the individual piece.

Let's take Fox for example. I find Shepard Smith to be fair and impartial. But John Gibson is so right and nasty at times he makes me cringe. CNN is equally guilty, Wolfe Blitzer I find to be fair, while Aaron Brown gets off on a liberal tangent and tends to editorialize.

Rupert Murdoch started Fox News specifically to espouse the Conservative view in media to counter a Liberal bias he felt was present in other outlets. He has admitted as much. When you start off tainted like that and allow any reporter to be obviously biased towards one group or another its hard to defend yourself.

I would like to point out that many of the programs on Fox are news commentary and analysis and the host may very well have a particular view. Gibson falls into this catagory, as does O'Reilly, Hannity, Colmbs, Rivera and I guess Greta van Susteren, although I have never figured out where Greta stands on political issues. Most of her shows are about criminal cases and I guess, there isn't much to be liberal or conservative about.

Brit Hume is very fair and balanced in my judgement as was Tony Snow, although Tony is an uabashed conservative. Shepard is fair and balanced but most of this stuff is not really all that political.

All in all, it's a good network and I like it a lot.

Originally posted by Weller
Rupert Murdoch started Fox News specifically to espouse the Conservative view in media to counter a Liberal bias he felt was present in other outlets. He has admitted as much. When you start off tainted like that and allow any reporter to be obviously biased towards one group or another its hard to defend yourself.

Regardless of Murdoch's intentions or Turner's, etal, you are generalizing. No two right wingers or left wingers are the same - everyone has their own belief system and prejudices. And shock of all shock there are journalists out there who actually do just report the news (not many but they are out there) It's a shame that people have to label and dismiss rather than actually deciding each on his own merits - they are missing out.

You want fair and accurate reporting - watch Shepard Smith and Wolf Blitzer.

This whole post-debate affair reeks of Karl Rove's behind-the-scenes manipulations. Clearly this "accidental" release is trying to get the fundamentalists to view Kerry as a "metrosexual", which carries with it (erroneously, I might add) homosexual undertones. I wonder how they are going to vote?

MK

Fox is to news as McDonalds is to food. But at least even McDonalds knows when it needs to lift its game to provide a semblance of nutritional value.

There is more to the ridiculous biases and misreporting in Murdoch's mass media organs than immediately meets the eye. But in 2 years time, the leaning on Fox will be the other way. (No need to place this on the Predictions Forum).

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

There is more to the ridiculous biases and misreporting in Murdoch's mass media organs than immediately meets the eye. But in 2 years time, the leaning on Fox will be the other way. (No need to place this on the Predictions Forum).

Agreed. After Kerry wins the election you will see the "moderate" republicans come out and begin some real bi-partisan politics. They have to, they've got no choice, they'll be s***-scared to lose their jobs come mid-term elections from the political change in the wind. Rush Limbaugh can go back from being an independant to conservative, as will the rest. Fox will probably follow suit...it depends on how large Kerry's win is.

MA...good to see ya posting...I thought you had died. It's gotten so I find myself shocked to see a member posting thats been here longer than a year anymore!


There is no enemy anywhere - Lao Tse
(even if it does sell advertising spots)

Originally posted by sturod84

are u telling me they put those documents on the air with full knowledge that they were forged?

They didn't really check the validity of the doc or the source. They basically just gave Rather a free pass to do what he wanted. I don't believe the CBS execs knew they were fake, but they certainly had no reason to trust that they were real. They showed very poor journalism ethics and judgement. That was their mistake. And they certianly knew what they were doing wasn't right (or they're as blind to what reporting means as Fox is), which means it damn sure wasn't an honest msitake.

I certainly wasn't trying to justify Dan Rather's "Memo-Gahrib" of documented evidence confirming a suspected history of torturing small US Presidents by pointing to the conservative insurgents over at FOX and their beheading of a Democratic candidate (even in mock effigy).

No, no, no. It's the "media police" response I was looking for.

You know the ones? The rally 'round O'Reilly and boycott every little thing they can get their minds around?

FIRE DAN RATHER. BOYCOTT CBS IF THE ENTERTAINMENT DIVISION SHOWS A MOVIE ABOUT REAGEN. AP RETRACTION OF BUSH BACKERS PROVES LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS. SEND ALL ADVERTISERS THAT DEEM TO SUPPORT ANYONE ANYWHERE THAT DOESN'T AGREE IN LOCK STEP WITH EVERY LITTLE THING NEWT GINGRICH SAYS A CLEAR SIGNAL!!! HIT 'EM IN THE POCKET, RAISE A STINK, RAISE A STINK! GOOOOOOOOOO TEAM OVERREACT! YAY!



And I'm not saying anyone here is a tongue clucker but some obviously share the mindset I suspected of "no big deal" when FOX gets busted doing the same thing.

Hey, it's not like I posted this one in ATSNN. That's for outing "liberal media" bias right?

[edit on 2-10-2004 by RANT]

What's wrong with these two pictures?

www.conspire.com...


Can you photoshop someone three inches taller, run it on the news and still call it a photo?

How about an "artist's interpretation" of George W. Bush?

Mind you, I still don't care. But these guys are just sad really. :shk:

Originally posted by RANT
Mind you, I still don't care.

Oh, come on, admit it, this kind of thing gives you a hard-on

Originally posted by Esoterica

Originally posted by RANT
Mind you, I still don't care.

Oh, come on, admit it, this kind of thing gives you a hard-on

I like seeing the seedy underbelly of every little thing, but it's telling how only one side of seedy underbellies ever make it main stream.

The selective "outrage factor" is what fascinates me. I do my part and have my rants, but it's not like I'm on TV calling for little old ladies to unite and defeat the spread of rampant conservative media bias.

That's Fox's deal in the reverse, hypocritical as they are.