roronoa3000
Banned
[B][URL="https://www.freeones.com/jane-burgess said:Jane Burgess[/URL][/B], post: 5205952, member: 201847"]I watch Fox News and I don't think I am misinformed.
Thats what they want you to think.:elaugh:
[B][URL="https://www.freeones.com/jane-burgess said:Jane Burgess[/URL][/B], post: 5205952, member: 201847"]I watch Fox News and I don't think I am misinformed.
You can tell misinformed people by their postings and rants.
I enjoy reading a couple newspapers a day. I have found newspapers to be biased as well. We have the AZ Republic here and they are so biased.
But people are going to focus on the parts they agree with, and disregard the rest. If you're only listening to one side (either side), you are being misinformed.
IMHO, Fox is the symptom, not the problem... the "mainstream" media lost a lot of credibility over the last couple of decades by slanting stories themselves, usually to the benefit of "liberal" ideology, but all in the guise of REAL news. Fox came along and gave people center to right "news" that they agreed with. Lefties are no different, and it has all lead to people watching opinionated based reporting of their own slant... what's true anymore in the news media? No one can say for sure... True journalism, i.e., finding out facts are reporting them, is all but dead these days and we're all the worse for it. :2 cents:
I watch Fox News and I don't think I am misinformed.
Not that I even accept the premise of Fox being a symptom vice problem but aren't symptoms problems too?
Would you give a shit about your allergy to pollen but for the running nose, puffy eyes, itching and coughing?:dunno:
But even as such...you're claiming Fox is a symptom of mainstream media's loss of credibility (which is highly debatable) while they counter-produce an even less credible product. That isn't a symptom, that's another problem.
Now what I will say is Fox is an extension of a strategy to perpetuate a 'death of truth' world whereby they can wantonly mislead, misinform and even create 'news' justifiably (in the eyes of their viewers) because their viewers have been convinced other news outlets do just the same. Hence, a you have your news and I have mine world.
This started with the right wing campaign to discredit regular media outlets to the point where the founders of an outfit like Fox can come along and give right wingers what they think they've been missing.
You can go back 20 or so years ago when republicans and they media types would exploit every isolated case and anecdote in order to create the impression there was some liberal media conspiracy.
The fact of the matter is what they were pointing out amounted to little more than rummaging over 10 years worth of the average person's tax returns, finding technical infractions then labeling the person a tax cheat.
We all should know the average journalist is lazy and prone to conventional thinking when they report. Therefore, some of their reporting can come across as liberal (though unintentional) if they include or omit some buzzword a critic is sensitive to. That coupled with some polls of media types and how they're registered or vote then they convince their followers of this grand media conspiracy.
Fox is little more than entertainment with a serious face.
I did?? I got your point (Fox being a 'symptom' vice problem..They're not, they most certainly are a problem.) and addressed it entirely.HM, I think you missed my point entirely
^^Case in point.The last serious poll I remember last year stated that over 3/4 of the "media" considers themselves "liberal." And the bias is everywhere, and Fox is the same thing on the other end of the spectrum. But at least you KNOW what the slat is when you watch Fox. Other outlets TRY to be neutral but they aren't, and that worries me even more because people can be swayed by what they THINK is unbiased news, but the boas is there, just more subtle.
I miss the days when news orgs just reported the facts with no commentary. Heck, most news anchors can't even keep the inflection of the voice normal or they facial expressions neutral when they are reporting a story and trying to be "fair." :dunno:
Those are NOT examples of news outlets.That's why I stick to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, thank you very much! But even they are slightly partisan, but not as bad as most news networks
Really? ALL fake? Is there a news outlet in existence that is ALL true then? Never should one make blanket, sweeping generalizations.Fox News Channel is the professional wrestling of the news world- all fake.
Exactly right.maybe, but the source is the huffington post, not exactly the poster child for impartiality.
Not that I even accept the premise of Fox being a symptom vice problem but aren't symptoms problems too?
We all should know the average journalist is lazy and prone to conventional thinking when they report. Therefore, some of their reporting can come across as liberal (though unintentional) if they include or omit some buzzword a critic is sensitive to. That coupled with some polls of media types and how they're registered or vote then they convince their followers of this grand media conspiracy.
Fox is little more than entertainment with a serious face.
If anything MSNBC and it's commentators (not reporters) are a reaction to Fox as most of what they deal with is responses to Fox.
Exactly right.
No. You're incorrect. A symptom is something that springs from, is in direct response to, a problem. Take care of the PROBLEM, the over-arching ISSUE, and you remove the SYMPTOM.
Secondly, how do you know the average reporter is lazy? Are you a reporter? Do you have experience dealing with large cross sections of them that it would then be acceptable for you to say something so generalizing, demeaning, and ill informed? I happen to know quite a few, and can say that for the most part, you could not be possibly any more incorrect. They have to bust their hump to get where they are. Lazy. Please. If you are going to march around here trying to sound like the smartest guy around, at least have the semblance of appearing to know what it is you're writing about before you spout off with such garbage. :nono:
I'll give you that one HM, they were getting uber pwned in the ratings and decided to sacrifice their journalistic integrity and become the very thing they were complaining about. And it backfired... they are worse than ever, and their rating blow. :dunno:
That's because you can't compare a momentary lapse to a consecutive string of idiotic statements.The Huffington Post? There's an objectvie source. (cough)
Btw - Barack Obama's on tape not knowing how many states there are. But he's not Sarah Palin, so he gets away with it.
The Huffington Post? There's an objectvie source. (cough)
Fox News Viewers Are The Most Misinformed: Study
First Posted: 12-17-10 09:42 AM | Updated: 12-17-10 04:49 PM
UPDATE: Fox News senior vice president for news Michael Clemente has responded to the study which found that his network's viewers are more misinformed about American political issues than any other channel. In a statement to the New York Times' Brian Stelter, Clemente disparaged the University of Maryland, where the study was done.
"The latest Princeton Review ranked the University of Maryland among the top schools for having ‘Students Who Study The Least’ and being the ‘Best Party School’ – given these fine academic distinctions, we’ll regard the study with the same level of veracity it was ‘researched’ with," Clemente said.
"For the record, the Princeton Review says the University of Maryland ranks among the 'Best Northeastern Colleges," Stelter notes. "It was No. 19 on the Review’s list of 'Best Party Schools.'"
ORIGINAL POST: Fox News viewers are much more likely than others to believe false information about American politics, a new study concludes.
The study, conducted by the University of Maryland, judged how likely consumers of various news outlets and publications were to believe misinformation about a wide range of political issues. Overall, 90% of respondents said they felt they had heard false information being given to them during the 2010 election campaign. However, while consumers of just about every news outlet believed some information that was false, the study found that Fox News viewers, regardless of political information, were "significantly more likely" to believe that:
:dunno: Okay... First, the analogy by C/S was 'spoilt' to begin with but dealing with it anyway..I'll try it slower with more examples for you Gal...
Perfect example of why you so loved around here Mega. Condescension knows no bounds apparently......
It's silly to believe as you suggest that if other media outlets changed their so called bias or reporting standards, Fox would simply stop reporting their bias and misleading. They wouldn't because they believe in how they report..right??
Can you show me exactly where I suggested that? Caaaauuuse, I looked, and I think I was literally arguing semantics with you. You are wrong about symptom vs. problem.
Well, I don't know it and this isn't definitive but I do have a sister and a cousin both of whom have worked for major news outlets for the past 30 years. Does what they and their colleagues say count?:o
Then you should not say that "we should all know." Period. Blanket statements are never a good idea, and I would think you would know that. Apparently not.
They along with some of their colleagues say "the average reporter is lazy when it comes to reporting their stories" and it's worse nowadays. Hell, even without their input anyone can see the average story or article you read is poorly written from the standpoint of some of what's unintentionally conveyed either by omission or settling for conventional semantics.
A couple people's opinion, and then you "back it up" with rhetoric. Anyone can see? I don't know what you read, but I tend to read very well thought out articles and op eds.....don't always agree with them, but still.......
Your move.:o
I honestly wish we were playing chess, Mega, 'cause I would smoke you son.
I suppose it would be worthing mentioning that Huffington post is not a news agency but a blog and repository for news posts.
The post is about a Univ. of Maryland study...not something Huffpost created.
You can read it now since you didn't bother the first time....