Originally Posted By DAR <<Well, that just isn't true, DAR. There have been numerous examples of stilted (towards the right) coverage by them, and their lineup of hosts (O'Reilly, Hannity, Cavuto, those morning show dimwits, etc.) is all conservative. Oh yes, they have Alan Colmes, so they're balanced. Meanwhile, their "news analysis" is from the likes of Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich and so forth.>> So they weren't allowed to hire these people?? That makes little sense to me.
Originally Posted By dshyates Oh, and everyone has a bias, just not everyone enacts it into an agenda. Matthews, and Russert are without a doubt left leaning, but Olbermann crosses into agenda. I enjoy his show because I agree with him for the most part, but I am aware that his passion has crossed that line. I don't believe that the non FOX outlets are, as a policy, agenda driven like I do FOX. And I don't belive FOX is because of a strong morality basis, just that the Republicans are far more interested in huge multi-faceted single owner republican friendly media giants. Murdoch helps get them in office, they change the laws so Murdoch can own a larger percentage of the control over what info gets presented or more importantly not. Murdoch isn't the only player in this. Clear Channel has also at the behest of the administration controlled the content of their station. ""Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." Thomas Jefferson 1789
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>So they weren't allowed to hire these people?? That makes little sense to me.<< They can hire whoever they like. But if your stable of "talent" seems to tilt way over to one side, then you can't say there is no bias, no agenda. You can point to several other networks and see their lineup of news analysts are off to the left. Clearly, there are a lot of people who enjoy getting information tilted to one side or the other. Fox caters to folks on the right. That's fine, but to pretend they don't doesn't make sense.
Originally Posted By DAR Okay but addressing the topic at hand I'm hearing words like sinister behind the showing of a wrong photo. To me that's just a mistake. Unless people think Fox News is mostly conservative. Conservatives hate people of color, probably think they all look the same. Therefore Fox News must hate people of color.
Originally Posted By dshyates From working in the news business I can tell you a mistake like that could almost never happen, and would certainly get you fired. I don't for a second believe it was a mistake. FOX viewers ARE dumb enough to PERCIEVE and uneducated enough to believe, "Oh yeah, the GREAT White Republican obviously won against that stupid "n word". Since most of them don't know Fredrick Douglas from Steven Douglas. Remember a picture is worth a thousand words.
Originally Posted By DAR You actually believe what you wrote. You actually believe that a viewer from Fox News is that stupid. That's like saying well the audience for MSNBC, nothing but a bunch of flaming queers like that channel. Do you know how ignorant my statement or yours sounds?
Originally Posted By dshyates I should have been more specific. Yes I do believe the average FOX viewer is that uneducated. As are the audiences of MSNBC, CNN, and American Idol. I would bet that less than 15 percent of Americans know the difference between Fredrick Douglas and Steven Douglas. But if pressed most could probably tell you that Lincoln did not debate a black presidential candidate in 1858.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Okay but addressing the topic at hand I'm hearing words like sinister behind the showing of a wrong photo.<< Oh yeah, I agree. It is just a blooper in this case, happens to everyone on TV sooner or later. I imagine taht the photos are all archived electronically for quick access. If someone enters "Douglas" instead of "Douglass" it can happen. If the person grabbing the photos doesn't know the difference to begin with, there you go. I don't think the on-air folks knew the difference either, because there was no reaction to the photos. It happens.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo Holy crap! Talk about a faux pas. I have to wonder though if they actually believed that the Douglas in the L/D debates was Frederick Douglass and not Stephen Douglas. I certainly wouldn’t be surprised. That would make for an brief debate, though: L: “The concept of African slavery and human chattel are a moral crime.†D: “I know.†L: “Oh yeah.†BTW, just for trivial sake, note the unconventional spelling of his name.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo Wait…I just had a thought about this. With all the talk of a L/D style debate between Obama and Clinton, maybe Fox was on to something—an innuendo of a sort. Because certainly Lincoln and Douglass were alike with regard to the question of slavery, the sole topic of the debate. Likewise, Clinton and Obama are virtually identical in nearly every substantive matter as well. So, while I don’t really believe they actually thought this far into the proposition, and surely most Fox viewers wouldn’t have caught it, it actually makes sense if you view it in an unorthodox, droll sort of way.
Originally Posted By dshyates You'll notice that on MSNBC when they are doing political analysis they will use both Racheal Maddow and Pat Buchannon. When FOX News does it they turn to Karl Rove. They never show both sides. I am a news photog and it is standard policy to get interviews from both sides. Thats journalism 101. FOX does not do this. Ever. FOX News is no more a legitimate news organization than CBN.
Originally Posted By gadzuux The problem with the "point/counterpoint" setup with maddow and buchanan is that they frequently agree. Part of this is because day to day issues have one glaringly obvious 'view' and part is because buchanan has been actively moderating his politics from his earlier troglodyte days. And the only people who give fox news any credence at all are the people that want their news filtered through a partisan prism for them. Everybody else sees it for exactly what it is - one sided advocacy.
Originally Posted By alexbook >>L: “The concept of African slavery and human chattel are a moral crime.†D: “I know.†L: “Oh yeah.â€<< LOL
Originally Posted By woody I know you guys hate FOX news, but you fail to note when the other news stations get things wrong. This is a sign of your own bias. Don't forget that FOX is only one cable news channel. CNN and MSNBC have a bigger presence on cable yet they get things wrong more often by definition since they have more hours to burn. Don't forget the wonderful lefty/liberal commentators like Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, and Chris Anderson. >>And the only people who give fox news any credence at all are the people that want their news filtered through a partisan prism for them. Everybody else sees it for exactly what it is - one sided advocacy. << Maybe they want a little balance. It isn't nefarious to expect news to advance your point of view or merely to allow it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>but you fail to note when the other news stations get things wrong<< That isn't true. During the CBS Rathergate memo incident, I posted here about why I thought the memo was forged and why I thought it was deliberate. This slip up was Fox this time. When another network does it, we'll joke about that, too.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Part of this is because day to day issues have one glaringly obvious 'view' << Yep. And some issues, like an obvious goof up like this one, really don't have a "side" to it other. Not everything is a left/right issue.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros "You know 80% of FOX News viewers still think Saddam Hussain played a vital role in the execution of the 9/11 attacks." I'd say that says more about the American public in general than it does about Fox. Just because you don't agree with everything other people say doesn't mean it's wrong. As a conservative person, I find a whole bunch of stuff that's said all over the place (TV, radio, internet, your posts) absolutely rediculous. However, I don't really say anything about it. I guess that's one of the downfalls of being conservative, I tend to fall into the 'silent majority', even if it isn't the majority these days. I tend to not voice my opinion because I know it will simply be put down immediately as being fed by propoganda and all sorts of other silly statements, when my thoughts are just as valid as yours. The difference is that I actually do some thinking of my own, and don't just go with the majority, even if I am silent for the most part. Following what mainstream media says is the easy thing to do. They say that there have been difficulties in Iraq, so that means to everybody it's time to get out. I disagree with that entirely. Reconstructing a country takes a very long time. Sure, there are still a lot of people over there who are fighting against us, but every couple weeks I read a new article about how much the standard of living has improved in the past few years, and I know we're helping a lot more people than are being harmed. There are still troops in Germany as left overs from World War II, so I don't think anybody with half a brain really thinks that we will leave Iraq any time soon. I know this is a little off topic, but I'm just using it as an example as to how other mainstream media outlets can propoganda with the best of them, and that Fox isn't alone with showing a bias. Welcome to America, where we welcome people of differing opinions. In fact, we were founded on different opinions. Sure, everybody makes a mistake from time to time. Ultimately, I really don't think that this one matters as much as so many others. If it means that much to you, that says more about you and your sad life than anything else, IMO.
Originally Posted By woody >>This slip up was Fox this time. When another network does it, we'll joke about that, too.<< Yes, every station is wrong at some point, but the tone of this thread is to slam FOX based on their perceived bias. Funny how bias is such a problem with FOX and not CBS, MSNBC, CNN.
Originally Posted By gadzuux The whole "rather-gate" memo thing allowed disingenuous conservatives to dismiss the entirety of the AWOL bush story just because of the one piece of flawed (or faked) evidence. It doesn't matter to them that the gist of the story was still accurate. I suppose there's some divine justice in that, and it's just so much water under the bridge anyway now that bush has nearly completed his second term. But it still points out that conservatives don't want to hear anything that conflicts with their world view. This is how GOP operatives like rove were able to portray kerry - an actual decorated military combat leader - as a treasonous traitor. While bush - who ducked military service and actually DID go AWOL - is a principled and brave warrior. This isn't easy to do. It requires both halves to be manipulated - a dumbcluck voting block AND a compliant media. Luckily for the republican party, they have both right in the ol' pocket - the christian right and fox news. With this potent combination, "truth" becomes whatever they say it is.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Oh brother. >>From working in the news business I can tell you a mistake like that could almost never happen, and would certainly get you fired.<< You mean like when CNN ran a graphis of Osama bin Laden with the boldly printed caption, "WHERE"S OBAMA?" <a href="http://algraffix.nstemp.com/obama_osama.jpg" target="_blank">http://algraffix.nstemp.com/ob...sama.jpg</a> >>I don't for a second believe it was a mistake.<< Then your bias is showing. ALL the 24/7 news nets make mistakes. All of them. >>FOX viewers ARE dumb enough to PERCIEVE and uneducated enough to believe...<< At least this one is smart enough to know to spell words correctly when making a big point about education. (Hint: it's "perceive." You know, "I before E, EXCEPT after C.") >>Since most of them don't know Fredrick Douglas from Steven Douglas.<< Well, Frederick Douglass was the abolitionist and Steven Douglas was the father on My Three Sons. <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053525/" target="_blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053525/</a> Stephen A. Douglas, on the other hand, was a Congressman from Illinois who famously debated Lincoln. <a href="http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=D000457" target="_blank">http://bioguide.congress.gov/s...=D000457</a> Anything else?
