Originally Posted By DlandDug P.S. I do hope that your work in the "news business" doesn't involve creating on screen graphics. One mistake and you'd be FIRED!!!
Originally Posted By alexbook >>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/ob...sama.jpg<<" target="_blank">http://algraffix.nstemp.com/ob...<<</a> Classic. (I bet somebody did get fired over that.)
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>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 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...<< Wrong again. (And I don't mean just about the spelling of the names "Rachel" and "Buchanan.") Where you are (also) wrong is your assertion that Fox News never uses point/counterpoint interviews in their analysis. If they have a Republican strategist on, they will have a Democratic strategist. Susan Estrich, Juan Williams and Pat Caddell, among others regularly engage their conservative counterparts on Fox. (And for their trouble, are then accused of being DINOs.) Never? Nah.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Classic. (I bet somebody did get fired over that.)<< No, they just apologized and everybody moved on. <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8MDBBEG0&show_article=1" target="_blank">http://www.breitbart.com/artic...rticle=1</a> Hilarious EXCERPT: >>CNN called it a "bad typographical error" by its graphics department.<<
Originally Posted By DlandDug Oh, and back on topic I finally looked at the clip, and found it is from the morning show Fox and Friends. Fox and Friends is essentially the equivalent of Live With Regis and Kelley, only with more people and a news reader.
Originally Posted By dshyates "P.S. I do hope that your work in the "news business" doesn't involve creating on screen graphics. One mistake and you'd be FIRED!!!" No graphics, but I do have to enter lower 3rds. Which are the names that pop up under a talking head. And I am a horrible speller. But I check and recheck the spellings and title/rank. I don't know about all shops but the one I worked at the news director did not tolerate lazy mistakes like spelling errors. 2 mistakes in your lower 3rds and your suspended. 3 and its game over. Don't call a trooper a deputy they hate that and we rely on them for ALL our news.
Originally Posted By dshyates "Where you are (also) wrong is your assertion that Fox News never uses point/counterpoint interviews in their analysis. If they have a Republican strategist on, they will have a Democratic strategist. Susan Estrich, Juan Williams and Pat Caddell, among others regularly engage their conservative counterparts on Fox." And you are correct that they do have Democratic stratigists on regularly. And I have to admit my bias clouded my perception earlier. But on a lot of current political happenings they will simply turn to just Karl Rove for an explaination of the events. To the best of my recollection I have never seen a counter-point analyst to Mr. Rove or even Newt for that matter. But Douglas, you are correct, I got carried away with myself earlier. And for that I do apologize.
Originally Posted By woody >>But on a lot of current political happenings they will simply turn to just Karl Rove for an explaination of the events. To the best of my recollection I have never seen a counter-point analyst to Mr. Rove or even Newt for that matter.<< Karl Rove is presented as an analyst who happens to be in an unique position of winning 2 consecutive presidential elections for Bush. He doesn't need a counterpoint. He is in a class of his own. They also have Dick Morris regularly without counterpoint. He won the elections for Clinton. His point of view is clearly Clinton centric, and anti-Hillary, but not pro-Republican so the issue of a debate could not be useful. Some contributors don't need to be debated.
Originally Posted By dshyates "They also have Dick Morris regularly without counterpoint. He won the elections for Clinton. His point of view is clearly Clinton centric, and anti-Hillary, but not pro-Republican" Dick Morris, Clinton centric? He hates the Clintons. He pretty much hates everyone in the Democratic party. He isn't per se pro-Republican. He does come on and rip the Deocratic candidates to shreds. If he is your example of the Democratic view that FOX offers I will agree.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...I check and recheck the spellings and title/rank. I don't know about all shops but the one I worked at the news director did not tolerate lazy mistakes like spelling errors.<< Wish there were more like him. The appalling spelling in news crawls irritates me greatly. >>To the best of my recollection I have never seen a counter-point analyst to Mr. Rove or even Newt for that matter.<< That is essentially true. (I don't regularly watch Fox, so I couldn't say for sure.) Rove is on staff for Fox, so I guess he is now a commentator, rather than an analyst. And apology gladly accepted.
Originally Posted By retlawfan For the record folks: I appreciate the tone that this discussion has taken. Cool heads rationally stating their points, and not being afraid to admit when they have crossed the line and said something wrong or inappropriate. Thank you. Is this really World Events?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The appalling spelling in news crawls irritates me greatly.<< Don't you just hate those news crawls in general? It was important to have them after 9/11, or after some major national event. But now they're used as promos for other shows on each network, and sports scores. So much graphic clutter all over most of the cable network news screens -- bleh!
Originally Posted By woody >>Dick Morris, Clinton centric? He hates the Clintons.<< That comes with experience. He has knowledge about the Clintons unlike no other. >>He pretty much hates everyone in the Democratic party.<< This is untrue. He worked for both political parties. He would have no reason to be purely partisan.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Dick Morris is perhaps the best example I've ever seen of "political opportunist." He seems to have no convictions of his own and will forcefully argue just about any position, depending on who's signing his check on any given day.
Originally Posted By planodisney What I dont understand is why so many topics about FOX News. The usual complaint is bias, and that liberals find this bias offensive. Yet, I never see any liberals post about the INSANE bias on MSNBC. Olberman is the most bias news program in the history of television, and the guy wont even ALLOW someone with a differing opinion on his show. The channel is very much in the tank for the Democratic party and as of recent history have joined the Obama campaign. Why no outrage at just how biased MSNBC is? I think many of you have been SOOOOO spoiled by constanttly being reaffirmed of your views by 95% of the mainstream media that you absolutely can't handle FOX news. It's like you have become spoiled brats. I dont think you hate bias, I think you can't stand a channel that doesnt constantly cater to your views.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal It's not that I hate bias or news channels that do not cater to my point of view, it's that I dislike the whole, "we're not biased! We're fair and balanced!" It happens on most every news channel. It's not the bias, it's the lying about having a bias to begin with.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Olberman is the most bias news program in the history of television,> Olbermann makes no bones about his bias. His show is in many ways an "answer" to (and somewhat modeled on) The O'Reilly Factor. O'Reilly is not news per se, he's a guy giving his spin on the day's news items, which is just what Olbermann does, and neither pretends to be doing anything else. They're each their network's 8:00 prime time show, they're primarily entertainment for their respective partisans, and neither program really pretends to be news per se. So that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the bias that is all over Fox News when it's supposed to be presenting "straight" news. It's much more blatant than that of the straight news on the other channels. When Tony Snow moved from Fox News to being the Bush administration spokesman, you could hardly notice the difference.
Originally Posted By dshyates "The usual complaint is bias, and that liberals find this bias offensive." Its not "bias" that is bothersome. It is agenda. And not so much agenda on an individual basis. Like Keith Olbermann and Beck. It is agenda based corporate policy. Particularly when the agenda and administrations are working hand in hand. Like FOX and Clear Channel control their content on the administrations behest and suddenly the laws guarding against media monopolies are drastically soften. " In 2003, the FCC voted, without any public input, to allow one company to own up to three television stations, the local newspaper, the cable system and up to eight radio stations in one media market" In 1983 there were there were 50 corporations that controlled 90% of the news content, In 2000 it was 37, by 2004 it was 6. (Time Warner, Disney, News Corporation (FOX), Bertelsmann of Germany, Viacom (CBS), General Electric (NBC), Clear Channel. "Yet, I never see any liberals post about the INSANE bias on MSNBC" Thats your job. Start pointing. And I do agree that MSNBC is biased and has in the past several years seamingly become much friendlier to the democratic party. And Obama specifically. And as far as Olbermann goes. Yep flaming bias. But he doesn't claim otherwise. He is a liberal democratic commentator. Similar to and no more biased than Glenn Beck. I personally think that agenda based opinion shows don't belong on legitimate news channels. I find a lot of speculative explanations are being offered. And the most common tool used by both side is to explain how the otherside thinks. ie: "The democrats want to take all your money and make everyone use food stamps that will be given for free, and they want a government store where you can redeem those food stamps on government cheese and wheat.", "The Republicans want to cut all the taxes, dismantal the public education system, get rid of all social servicies, and if you need food they may loan you a bullet so you can shoot dinner for your family."
Originally Posted By planodisney The difference, is that opposing opinions are allowed on O'Reilly, and are not on Olberman. You dont see any difference in that. Also, olberman has never stated he is a liberal and backs the Democratic party, it is just evident in his bias reporting. Olberman is more like Hannity than O'Reilly, yet he never tells the audience, as Hannity does, that he whole heartidly subscribes to a particular political phylosophy. And, Hannity has a counterpoint on his show. There is NO FOX equivalent of Olberman.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> ... he's a guy giving his spin on the day's news items, which is just what Olbermann does, and neither pretends to be doing anything else. << Actually, o'reilly DOES pretend that he's presiding over the "no-spin zone". But as with the rest of fox news, everyone except for the most easily duped sees it for exactly what it is.
