Drago, I'm blushing.

I go in fits and starts, however. It's tiresome to attempt to make distinctions of fact and opinion with those who would equate major media obvious, systemic axe-grinding/cover-up scandal such as RatherGate with minor-league nobody Gannon, in briefings on a day pass.

Re: Fox news, I think it's closer to what I believe the middle to be; but again, this is the NEWS part of its programming. Too many of the "I can't be bothered by little things like definitional distinctions" crowd want to characterize O'Reilly as "news", when he's not. He's no more "news" than Jon Stewart, who also provides comment on contemporary newsworthy issues.

Where I think Fox excels is in having actual balance -- an acknowledged, self-declared conservative vs. an actual leftie, on more-or-less equal footing. The other networks, to the extent they allow a rightist viewpoint at all, do so as a set-up to a joke or as a caricature.

IMHO, in the MSM, there's very much a "this is what conservatives think" presentation of conservative positions by parties not at all sympathetic to such positions, and very little "here's a conservative, with equal time and respect, to tell you what conservatives believe." I think FoxNEWS (and a lot of other Fox current affairs programming) does a great job at having both (or more) sides present their opinions.

It's been commented on before, here and elsewhere -- the far Left is oftentimes more intolerant of contrary ideas and challenging opinions than it claims the Right to be. Exhibit #1 is the relative dearth of "Right-wing" commentary in the MSM.

JP

I get a clearer view of the news from Jon Stewart's The Daily Show, than from Fox.:)

kach -
Clearer b/c it's closer to what your preconceptions are? Or b/c it's simplified beyond recognition? Both?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1110408139.gif

:D

JP

Don't get me wrong, Jon Stewart can be hysterically funny; however, he takes liberties with a lot of fact and history (usually through association errors, availability errors or manipulating context).

kids watch cartoons and adults watch mass media. O'Riley is Daffy Duck and Mathews is Micky Mouse.

Token sex excitment is provided by female commentators so they are fair and balanced. Both men and women like to stare at them.. ever notice that none of them have a necklace pearl or jewlery blocking cleavage.

Slacker...........can you make this out?

It's always a mater of perception...........the caption read facial massage.......don't you believe it.;)
http://www.tantramassage.de/engl1/bild4.jpg

I absolutely believe Fox to be both fair and balanced.

- Skip

Ah, Supe... if there's a Hegelian Dielectic on these boards, I think you and are a strong part of it. Moonbat. :D

Re: O'Reilly. He can be very strong, even crass on his show. Sometimes that grates me, but very often he's trying to pull a guest back on to the topic. Some fool (left or right .... usually left) takes their few minutes on O'Reilly not to speak to the issue at hand, but to rant on one of their own pet projects, or to obfuscate and evade the question posed.... that pi$$es me off, so when O'Reilly reins them in, I'm usually for it.

The guy's got a show to run, and you can't have Sissypants vanMilquetoast wetting herself about Title IX for an hour when people tuned in to discuss Lawrence Summers and potential overreaction by feminist academia to his few, qualified comments (for example).

At the end of each segment, Bill has always said "thank you" and frequently gives the "other" side the last word. It is his show, full of his opinions, he can do whatever t/f he wants. Unlike, for example, CBS Evening News...

JP

kach -- no, I can't; it comes through as the "X" for no picture. Not sure I want to see it, tho... :D

Maybe you will learn to relax and just trust me baby.:D
http://www.tantramassage.de/engl1/contente.html

I wish I hadn't seen it.

How am I going to trust you when my firm's firewall jumps in with a "403, Forbidden!!!" block on your link?

Oh, great. I think the IT Gestapo has released the hounds. Gotta run!

JP

All media is slanted. All perception is slanted. Even when you see it with your own eyes, while it is happening..the truth will be bent by how you perceive it.

Ooooh, delusions of adequacy ;)

According to the interweb thingy (I've ot seen the documentary) Outfoxed managed to find a number of memos from the news chief instructing the TONE of the coverage away from the centre...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407140002

They're not all damning, but some are pretty bad:

That is not fair, and not balanced.

Their website is ok, mostly because the news feeds come from AP and Reuters ;).

From an earlier post:

quote:Originally posted by rrpjr
In its short history and to my knowledge, Fox News has never been called out for an inaccurate report. Unlike CBS, which gave false credence to fabricated documents, and CNN, which falsified accounts of US atrocities. What Fox News did that was so scandalous was to offer a new perspective on liberal institutional behavior.



there are actually a few instances where they were called out and had to retract something, but that's not what concerns. It's how Fox reports. Just saw this example watching Fox and CNN.

Fox reported about the Gonzales hearing that it was a jovial affair, "a love fest at times with even democrats embracing him, one calling him "ol' buddy".

That was the entire story with a few clips of softball questions.

Same story on CNN revealed contentious questioning at times, even from Republicans. It showed one Republican talking about just the idea of looking to get around international laws against torture means you've lost the moral high ground.

But here's the topper! Remember Democrats calling him "ol buddy" in the Fox report? We'll, Joe Biden was questioning him on whether he thinks the President is, at times, beyond international law in regards to ordering torture.

Gonzales answers that it's a hypothetical question and that Bush didn't order the torture at Abu Graib and goes on to say that he can't say whether or not he thinks the President can order torture because it may effect the outcome of a future case. What is Biden's response?

Biden says his opinion now has absolutely no bearing on a future case, that it's "malarkey" and says "we're looking for a straight answer here, ol buddy"

Having an independent media source be an apologist for the government is the first step in slippery slope toward Fascism. Not saying that's going to happen in the US, but as a media source, Fox helps shape public opinion. Did Fox lie in their reporting? No, he really was called ol buddy by Democrat.

Is that really what happened? No.

I watch both to get both sides. This happens a lot. IT'S CALLED CONTEXT.

Now I know why so many people are confused in this country. They are being lied to on a daily basis and would never even know it. Poor souls.

As a sidebar to the contentious issue of "objectivity," you might want to know the origin of Fox's slogan of "fair and balanced."

During the early 70s there was a pioneering effort to develop an alternative independent major news media feeder service that would be entirely objective. This effort, which intended to compete with the broadcast networks' own services, as well as Reuters, et al., was led by Bob Pauley, a former president of ABC Radio Network, Mutual Network, and founder of the National Black Network (the nation's first Black-owned and operated media network). Pauley believed in the importance of totally objective and apolitical news, and spoke out publicly many times against bias of any sort. He was one of the last network executives who actively espoused the notion of public trust, that is, of media as a steward of a publicly-owned airwaves.

Pauley put much of his own personal fortune into his company, Television News, or TVN, and was also backed by Joseph Coors, the Colorado beer magnate, and, as many of you know, a notorious political conservative. While Coors was motivated to correct what he saw as a predominantly liberal media, he did not insert himself into the management of TVN, and professed at least to believe in Pauley's ideal of objectivity -- neither left nor right, simply the news. Pauley was insistent on a firewall between investors and the actual news operations. His motto for TVN was "Fair and Balanced."

One of Pauley's managers was Roger Ailes, now the President of Fox News. While TVN did not survive, and cost both Pauley and Coors a bundle, it indubitably gave Roger Ailes something to think about. He borrowed the slogan, if not the pure idealism of TVN, and the rest is history.

You guy are soooooooo far off base.
It is simple, I watch Fox because thier chicks reading the news are better looking than the other chicks reading the news.

The truth arrives! Anybody here, (other than Super) who would rather see Jane Fonda read a teleprompter? ;)

ok.. i admit it. I'd rather watch something slinky who says what I want to hear. The drift, either L or R is 60% genetic. The "watch" is simple cave man action. The package sought is entertainment.

The commentaries are "sure sweetness. whatever you say".

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1110438068.jpg

Close................some people simply prefer to hear what comforts them over the ugly truth. They want to hear what they want to hear. They want to hear we are great and can do no wrong and those who look at themselves in the mirror are simply vain.

See buildings in ruins in Iraq = Reconstruction is going well

See Humvees being blown up = Winning the war on terror

See government spending out of control = Economy is good

"Tell me what I want to hear"................ and I'll keep watching; is what Fox views are saying. They have a choice, and they have chosen an alternate and false reality.

Among the reasons why many Dems are confused is that they are subliminally controlled and blinded by their hatred of Bush. They mistook their emotions for facts. Bonus coupons is that their totally negative campaign reflected badly on them.

fwiw.. Hillary will provide the Dems with something to believe in instead of someone to hate imo. Who knows what that'll be?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1110460480.jpg

kach22i, if the media had reported the same way it does now during World War II, we would have all become immensely demoralized and probably would not have lasted the first year of the war. Look at some of the single-battle casualties we suffered in what were widely proclaimed as victories... In some cases we lost 20,000 troops in a single day in a single battle, but the media at the time would also report that the other side lost 50,000. (Notice that we only hear about U.S. casualties in Iraq).

I can't wait 'til the Baby Boomers are retired and we finally stop re-fighting Vietnam.