|
|
Post by Proud on Jul 9, 2004 17:54:08 GMT -5
fox news is fair and balanced!
|
|
|
|
Post by melon1 on Jul 9, 2004 21:12:17 GMT -5
Excellent post, Rocdoc. That just about made my day.  |
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Jul 9, 2004 21:30:13 GMT -5
It's been said - lots of lefties at the Beeb. But I don't think its reporting or current affairs coverage is left wing. I can see why you'd think so, but you have to remember the differences between US and European political culture, and how much further to the right American society is in general. Having said that, I did have tongue in cheek about impartiality, given all that's gone on in the Beeb since the Iraq/Dr Kelly thing kicked off. You can tell they've got the knives out for Blair now, any chance they get. Thanks for the input on the BBC, JLLM. And yeah, you're right about the different political cultures too. I guess I hadn't considered that. I completely missed your tongue-in-cheek tone. Chalk that up to my ignorance. Sorry about that! |
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Jul 9, 2004 21:34:53 GMT -5
fox news is fair and balanced!Yes it is, at least compared to all the other network and cable news outlets, which tend to skew left. Of course everyone see things through their own prism anyway. Don't worry Proud, the Left has most news organizations in their pocket! 
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Jul 9, 2004 21:56:27 GMT -5
rush limbaugh, o' reilly, and the like are so liberal... plus fox news and pat buchanan and (the quadrillion other media conservatives here). their liberalness is so liberal that it rots the liberal core of liberal land.
plus they blame the media when they ARE (a big part of) the media. it's very cute.
|
|
|
|
Post by kats on Jul 9, 2004 21:58:31 GMT -5
i don't intend to post on here again, but was cruising the last ten posts, and saw this. though i might addmy quick bit. over here, fox news is a bit of a laughing stock. whilst our media is predominantly run by murdoch, nothing is so blindly political agendist over here as your media. we do case studies of fox news and such at uni. we have a completely different media over here. it's so weird how different it is, despite having some of the same companies owning it. for example, we all know rupert is a conservative guy, his papers in fairfax over here can be fairly well reasoned. the australian, our 'right wing' paper is pretty much straight down the line and is more of a 'legal issues' paper. despite being mainly right wing, i subscribe. it's well written. for example, they criticised germaine greer, and the following week, they printed her reply which proved how the original journalist had no idea what they were talking about. the daily telegraph is our 'pleb' paper, written for an uneducated lower class. it's a fairfax paper,from memory. it's very right wing, but it's more ''save the lower class' than promoting a particular party policy. they most certainly hate protesters though. having said that, i know a few of the journalists that work there, and they are actually very left wing...they just put on a persona when they write. a lot of radio personalities do that, too. john laws is our right wing radio guy who hates everything and everyone, that's all a persona. he's best friends with one of the ''leftiest' prime ministers we have ever had. i've gone off my original point...but this is what our news is like.i was involved in a student protest a couple of months ago, because the howard government is trying to privatise tertiary education. which i object to, because i'm not going to spend 60,000 getting an education. 35,000 is already enough for me. anyway, the problem lies with the uni itself, my uni is very rich. it made 92 million dollars PROFIT last year alone. so, we protested, and after a handful of the police who were supervising the protest deviated from their guidelines and procedures, a bit of violence followed. capsicum spray was used on stationary people who posed no threat to police, and one policemen held a protester by the neck and sprayed him...which couldn't be more against the rules. anywho, the media turned up, and showed the violence. some channels showed the hours of peaceful protesting, but he majority didn't. as some of the protesters were unnecessarily rowdy and what not, we were unhppy with how it was presented in the media. so, the followig day, all the leading media outlets let our party spokesperson speak and clarify their position, as well as the police. this went down well, and the controversy was no longer media controlled, and most people seem to have made their own opinion on what the speakers said. which i think is fair enough. i've noticed that the american media is much more éditorialised' thn the australian media. here, unless you know what you're looking for, all of our news comes across as being objective. i mean, the sydney morning herald, our leading newspaper (great newspaper, imo) is pretty left. but they print leading right wing columnists every day. one of whom i finally came to blows with at a public debate *seethes* and says things just to be controversial. she had a column a few months back called, 'smokers, the last of the defiant heroes'. now you see what i mean. but she's there for 'mock'value. it's a quality paper. always up for a discussion of the media |
|
|
|
Post by shin on Jul 9, 2004 23:20:43 GMT -5
"Appeasement"?
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jul 10, 2004 3:06:27 GMT -5
I think that Hannity and Colmes is the perfect representation for FoxNews's "fair and balanced" approach. You have a guy who's far to the right, very vocal about his views, and unwilling to waver in the least in his dedication to right wing views. To counter him, you have the meekest man in the world, who isn't really all that liberal, but more of a middle of the road guy, with no real convictions, who basically just ignores his partner's rhetoric instead of really saying anything to counter it. Hannity rants and raves, and Colmes chimes in to bring the show in and out of commercial breaks, without every really offering much of an opposing viewpoint.
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Jul 10, 2004 3:43:52 GMT -5
kat - Yeah, Fox News is regarded as a joke over here too. The British media and tv stations were very scathing of Fox during Iraq.
Yet over here Murdoch's empire is more balanced in his serious papers, though still pretty conservative (and always anti-European Union). His papers actually backed Blair in 97 and '01, which I think proves he just gives the public what they already want, and tries to back a winner.
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Jul 10, 2004 9:04:06 GMT -5
amen, rocky. anyone who thinks fox news is truly fair and balanced is a tool. in fact, they're not just a tool. they're a monkey wrench.
i'm proud illness and i approve this message.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Jul 10, 2004 10:53:45 GMT -5
...actually Shin, the correct usage would be 'fucking appeasement'....and other than that, ALL else was reasoned pretty piss-poorly, eh?
...I guess I CAN see where thorn has his frustration when something you post, gets seen as simply always the 'same ol', same ol'' when it simply doesn't align with the 'chosen path' of what others have steeled themselves to believe.
GIVEN(I guess) that maybe your post hasn't really deviated that far from being the 'same ol' same ol'', but(like thorn)I still like to think I'm making some sense in what I write...
~
Oh. And thanks, Melon.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 10, 2004 11:15:50 GMT -5
chrisfan, this is just one of the many examples of how you are the most difficult poster to read and interact with. Sometimes I think you're just imbalanced, but most of the time, I'm positive it's because you talk out of your ass. You know, when you're not participating in semantics and ass kissing. Everytime I read one of your posts I find myself barely able to contain myself from throwing up all over my computer. And given that the only time you ever interact with me is to insult me, I'm supposed to care about this why? |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 10, 2004 11:26:44 GMT -5
Is Fox News fair and balanced? In comparison to what? I think that to critique them, or any other news outlet, you have to look at the personalities on the network, and I would agree with Rocky's assertion that the conservative voices on Fox are much louder than the liberal ones.
However, I think that the anchors/hosts employed by a network are only half the story. The other equally crucial (if not more so ... and I'd truly say it's more so) componet is the guests / sources they go to. When it comes to the guests, I do believe that Fox is MORE balanced than the other new networks. MSNBC depends on Pat Buchannan as their only conservative voice for the most part ... and he's kind of like an Alan Colmes. CNN gives Robert Novak about an hour a week, and that's about it.
Is Fox News totally fair and balanced? No. But at leastthey're making some sort of an effort to allow both sides to be heard.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 10, 2004 11:27:47 GMT -5
And why does Rush Limbaugh keep on coming up in discussions about Fox News?  I don't remember the last time he appeard on any of their shows as a guest, he's not a host. Is it just that there are so few places where conservative voices are heard that you think that if you hear one, it must be Fox News? |
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Jul 10, 2004 11:37:57 GMT -5
"Is Fox News totally fair and balanced? No. But at leastthey're making some sort of an effort to allow both sides to be heard. "
... ... ...
... ...
...
|
|
I don't remember the last time he appeard on any of their shows as a guest, he's not a host. Is it just that there are so few places where conservative voices are heard that you think that if you hear one, it must be Fox News?