Fox Media Bias Thread
- Thread starter Hot Mega
- Start date
Actually, I did go to school, graduated and I have a couple of Engineering degrees from Big Ten and Pac 10 schools and a MANSSS from NWC, Newport.
Now that we've cleared that misundstanding up...I thought I understood you the first time I just couldn't believe you were suggesting something that stupid.
I've seen affiliate stations advertise for their sister stations but I've personally not seen a competitor advertise their programming on their competition's network.
I'll have to look out for that.
Here is a list of fox advertisers from a few years ago when there was some calling for a boycott of those advertisers.As I said before those CNN spots etc are run by the cable company not FOX!
http://skinthefox.com/sponsors_001.htm
http://skinthefox.com/sponsors_001.htm
It is true that in the last election there was a lot of negative coverage of Sarah Palin. A good chunk of this was engendered by her woeful performance. In all her time on the hustings she never gave an open press conference. (Hmmm. Why do you think that was?)
Personally, I think it was because other than possessing a desire for the position she had no other relevant qualities. I wasn't alone in this. Beyond the borders of the US, with regard to the coverage of the candidates in the last presidential election, the verdict on Sarah Palin was universally negative irrespective of the ideology of the outlet. Right leaning publications such as the Spectator and the Economist thought that the McCain /Palin ticket was weak and that Palin was ill qualified for the post of vice president. The dog that these agents had in this fight was the wish to see a competent executive in place in the most powerful nation on earth. Consequently they went on to endorse Obama. The news organizations in the US that refused to see her shortcomings did themselves no favors in the creditability stakes. Those that continue to trumpet her candidacy less so. Given the magnitude of her inadequacy it was hardly surprising that from the minute she entered the race coverage would skew negatively to the republicans.
Sometimes you can't draw a line fairly down the middle. Sarah Palin was way out of her depth and to report otherwise would have been wrong. I can understand Fox cheering on their team for the course of a campaign but to still go on as if she was anything other than a disaster for the party just makes them look silly.
Personally, I think it was because other than possessing a desire for the position she had no other relevant qualities. I wasn't alone in this. Beyond the borders of the US, with regard to the coverage of the candidates in the last presidential election, the verdict on Sarah Palin was universally negative irrespective of the ideology of the outlet. Right leaning publications such as the Spectator and the Economist thought that the McCain /Palin ticket was weak and that Palin was ill qualified for the post of vice president. The dog that these agents had in this fight was the wish to see a competent executive in place in the most powerful nation on earth. Consequently they went on to endorse Obama. The news organizations in the US that refused to see her shortcomings did themselves no favors in the creditability stakes. Those that continue to trumpet her candidacy less so. Given the magnitude of her inadequacy it was hardly surprising that from the minute she entered the race coverage would skew negatively to the republicans.
Sometimes you can't draw a line fairly down the middle. Sarah Palin was way out of her depth and to report otherwise would have been wrong. I can understand Fox cheering on their team for the course of a campaign but to still go on as if she was anything other than a disaster for the party just makes them look silly.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Yep....local cable companies are allotted time during specific commercial breaks to do local spots and promos, so it is quite possible that You Might see a CNN or MSNBC promo on Fox (or vice-versa). I have DirecTV and never once have I seen an MSNBC promo on Fox (and I watch plenty of Fox News) but I will keep an eye out for it.
If you fished around long enough you would undoubtedly find stories, reporters and anchors who have a bias.
No placed makes bias a part of their daily mission statement like Fox though.
The difference some of you are missing (or choosing to ignore) with Fox is, the network itself is not about "news". The network uses news as a way of perpetuating an agenda through it's commentators, anchors and stories they choose to cover.
The other networks are about the news and happen to have personalities there who have some intrinsic bias (all human beings do) one way or the other and it may come across in their reporting from time to time.
Biased commentators are not reporters though. Hannity, Olbermann, Beck, Maddow, etc. are commentators and they are allowed to exhibit their bias.
Fox exists to promote an ideological agenda while using news as a cover component do so.
i want to know what media isn't liberal media! and if all media is liberal media and your against it...where do you get your media from?
He said once that he reads the NY Times.Fox news would not approve though,they have said the Times are traitors.:rofl:
Fox was the first to prove ...
Fox was the first to prove that conservatism can be just as sensational as liberalism. You can have flag flailing patriots that are just as bleeding heart as liberals.
Thank God. Because for awhile there, it was really going in a direction where you only got one side, and most everything else ignored. Now we have Fox that goes way, way the other way, and you get to hear the pundits from the other side. As least they provide the counter, so between the two, one will expose what they other won't.
Even CNN has now dropped it's news-only Headline News, and re-invented as HLN with analysts. Now that are as bad as everyone else, and it's very difficult to get just the basic info without analysts. And we've come full circle from the '80s (and earlier), news with plenty of analysts telling me what I don't care to hear -- on both sides.
Fox was the first to prove that conservatism can be just as sensational as liberalism. You can have flag flailing patriots that are just as bleeding heart as liberals.
Thank God. Because for awhile there, it was really going in a direction where you only got one side, and most everything else ignored. Now we have Fox that goes way, way the other way, and you get to hear the pundits from the other side. As least they provide the counter, so between the two, one will expose what they other won't.
Even CNN has now dropped it's news-only Headline News, and re-invented as HLN with analysts. Now that are as bad as everyone else, and it's very difficult to get just the basic info without analysts. And we've come full circle from the '80s (and earlier), news with plenty of analysts telling me what I don't care to hear -- on both sides.
Re: Fox was the first to prove ...
Train wrecks as well as Jerry Springer can be sensational. I think far too many people equate ratings with quality. That simply isn't so in every case. All Fox has demonstrated is there is a market for Republican t.v. Nothing more, nothing less.
We see everyday that the best products are not the products that necessarily sell the most. The product with the best packaging/marketing does. Fox followers know what they want to see and Fox gives them what they want to see and hear...many times at the expense of being credible or reasonable.
But why should a news organization be involved sensationalism? I thought they were suppose to "report" and "you decide"..:dunno:
Train wrecks as well as Jerry Springer can be sensational. I think far too many people equate ratings with quality. That simply isn't so in every case. All Fox has demonstrated is there is a market for Republican t.v. Nothing more, nothing less.
We see everyday that the best products are not the products that necessarily sell the most. The product with the best packaging/marketing does. Fox followers know what they want to see and Fox gives them what they want to see and hear...many times at the expense of being credible or reasonable.
But why should a news organization be involved sensationalism? I thought they were suppose to "report" and "you decide"..:dunno:
springer is about one thing appealing to the lowest common denominator, unfortunately, this is where most entertainment is going including the news channels (let's be honest the news channels are nothing short of entertainment). quality is far less important than ratings these days sadly enough.
Philbert
Banned
Re: Fox was the first to prove ...
And all MSNBC and CNN have demonstated is there isn't a market for lib Dem tv...probably 'cause most Obama supporters watch Oprah and play video games when they aren't in bars getting shitfaced.
Making lame excuses like that shows you have nothing to offer in a way of explanation as to why Fox is the most watched channel and the others are sucking wind, except they are only watched by lots of Republicans...which begs the question where are the millions of Libs and Dems who aren't watching the "Mighty Silly News and Bullshit Channel" and the "Crappy News Network"?
An old expression seems appropriate here..."The village dogs always bark at the Caravans passing in the night".
And all MSNBC and CNN have demonstated is there isn't a market for lib Dem tv...probably 'cause most Obama supporters watch Oprah and play video games when they aren't in bars getting shitfaced.
Making lame excuses like that shows you have nothing to offer in a way of explanation as to why Fox is the most watched channel and the others are sucking wind, except they are only watched by lots of Republicans...which begs the question where are the millions of Libs and Dems who aren't watching the "Mighty Silly News and Bullshit Channel" and the "Crappy News Network"?
An old expression seems appropriate here..."The village dogs always bark at the Caravans passing in the night".
Lets see why does fox have better ratings then other cable news?
Might be that sensationalist lets yell about who is ruining america instead of thoughtfull complex discussions of complicated problems is easier and more fun to watch for those not wanting to burden their limited intellects with heavy complicated ideas.Does this describe a lot of people?I think it does.
Its the same reason right wing radio is more popular ,it caters to the lowest denominator of intelligence and makes the complicated simple and sensational.
It's all AL Sharpton and those welfare moms and those bleeding heart libs to blame for why we are heading to hell in a handbasket.:1orglaugh
But make no mistake about it while that may be what even the types who think things were better when certain people had it all their way and the others knew their place are now getting that the conservative agenda is leaving them behind and feel threatened and are worried.
In other words Fox may be more popular as a news outlet but their message is not working on the masses more and more all the time.
Even those people who Obama described as clinging to their guns and god get it in some way even if they don't quite know how to say that.
The republicans and their divisive politics and just trust the rich to do the right thing and run the country as they see fit is really now a dead message.
There is no other way to explain how a black man got elected president (still shocks me that happened).It was due to High anxiety even among people who despise such an idea as his election and were willing to try just about anything as they now see its not just minority's ect. being left out in the cold by the rich ruling class but even them.
If Fox was really the pulse of america,McCain would be president,and the country would overwhelming have republicans in office.We all know thats not the case.
Might be that sensationalist lets yell about who is ruining america instead of thoughtfull complex discussions of complicated problems is easier and more fun to watch for those not wanting to burden their limited intellects with heavy complicated ideas.Does this describe a lot of people?I think it does.
Its the same reason right wing radio is more popular ,it caters to the lowest denominator of intelligence and makes the complicated simple and sensational.
It's all AL Sharpton and those welfare moms and those bleeding heart libs to blame for why we are heading to hell in a handbasket.:1orglaugh
But make no mistake about it while that may be what even the types who think things were better when certain people had it all their way and the others knew their place are now getting that the conservative agenda is leaving them behind and feel threatened and are worried.
In other words Fox may be more popular as a news outlet but their message is not working on the masses more and more all the time.
Even those people who Obama described as clinging to their guns and god get it in some way even if they don't quite know how to say that.
The republicans and their divisive politics and just trust the rich to do the right thing and run the country as they see fit is really now a dead message.
There is no other way to explain how a black man got elected president (still shocks me that happened).It was due to High anxiety even among people who despise such an idea as his election and were willing to try just about anything as they now see its not just minority's ect. being left out in the cold by the rich ruling class but even them.
If Fox was really the pulse of america,McCain would be president,and the country would overwhelming have republicans in office.We all know thats not the case.
Re: Fox was the first to prove ...
Most likely splitting their viewership among their local news, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, Comedy Central and most other shit that is just regular programming that has nothing to do with the political spin of cable news channels.
Or do you really think people other than GOPers are sitting around watching Fox for the "quality" of their broadcasts?:1orglaugh
Most likely splitting their viewership among their local news, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, Comedy Central and most other shit that is just regular programming that has nothing to do with the political spin of cable news channels.
Or do you really think people other than GOPers are sitting around watching Fox for the "quality" of their broadcasts?:1orglaugh
Philbert
Banned
That would be a great explanation for a simple minded person, but since there are (and were) actually more complicated events in play it doesn't fly.
If the dogma gripping your heart and mind would let you think clearly it would be obvious, but that's not the case, "obviously".
Why not elect a Black man President? A clear example of the racism inherent in your thought processes, I ran across practically no discussion during the elections on electing a Black man...that was the exclusive liberal racist view that it was a big deal...I and others were more worried about who was gonna take us out of the dark and bring it home...McCain made many feel less than inspired and Obama was obviously a raft of BS and blank pages.
A lot of totally star worshiping teen mag types voted their fav and had no idea about the world as it was and is...the difference was the show and not the issues.
There are more class bigots with the same take as yourself fueling the disconnect we are going through now, and nothing works without input...looking over here while things are happening over there (basic magicians trick) is allowing a lot of private agendas to be put in place, and that was the main intention of the forces that put Obama in the race and got him in office.
Wait and see what ends up being the effect of the Obama Presidency, and then you'll know what was going on...not til the dust settles will things be apparent.
Indications are that changes being put in place are theories, not actual experienced judgment, and end results are not predictable or controllable...there are no "takebacks" in world events.
And many people are worried...no one has time to deal with politics when they are losing their home, job, and future.
Anger will be directed at the boss, not at the previous admin...Obama put himself in the job, he either is or isn't able to handle it...no excuses like many here keep making.
That's a fact, Jack...
Wrongggg! A majority of American voters did.
Dude, there's only one right-wing TV outlet ...
There are too many left-wing outlets on TV in comparison, hence the ratings difference. Aggregately, there are far more left-wing viewers than right-wing viewers. The difference is just the number of outlet choices -- one versus many.
Dude, even you should be able to put that simple logic together.
With TV, you can say one thing and flash a video or picture that says another. I've seen reporters out'n out lie on TV with pictures.
It's much more difficult to do that on radio with images.
Those who work but listen at work is another. The listenership of talk radio versus TV viewing is an interesting eye opener on that fact. Simply put, a lot of people who work in office jobs that can leave their radio on aren't bleeding hearts.
Again, that logic is also straight-forward.
It's because it's the sole, right-wing outlet on TV. If there was more than one right-wing outlet, it wouldn't be so popular.
There are too many left-wing outlets on TV in comparison, hence the ratings difference. Aggregately, there are far more left-wing viewers than right-wing viewers. The difference is just the number of outlet choices -- one versus many.
Dude, even you should be able to put that simple logic together.
Oh I would so argue the opposite.
With TV, you can say one thing and flash a video or picture that says another. I've seen reporters out'n out lie on TV with pictures.
It's much more difficult to do that on radio with images.
Those who work but listen at work is another. The listenership of talk radio versus TV viewing is an interesting eye opener on that fact. Simply put, a lot of people who work in office jobs that can leave their radio on aren't bleeding hearts.
Again, that logic is also straight-forward.
Similar threads
