This... was on fox? No wai!

[guartz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvu12z832Xc


I just.. don't believe it.

[Senoska]

First time I've ever agreed with Fox.

[mootsfox]

Right wingers are usually heavy into freedom.

I too agree heavily here with fox. It is nice to see them bash their own administration too

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Why do people bash Fox for being biased but never the other news networks?

[Zhais]

Why do people bash Fox for being biased but never the other news networks?

Fox News was created specifically to counter the political viewpoints of liberal newstations. With that agenda in mind, 90% of their newscasts are heavily politically biased where others may not have as much lean.

[Olo401]

Why do people bash Fox for being biased but never the other news networks?

Because they bask in their own hypocrisy like a pig wallowing in its own shit.

[Septimus]

Why do people bash Fox for being biased but never the other news networks?

Because they bask in their own hypocrisy like a pig wallowing in its own shit.

Well, I was going to say that it is because the other networks don't make the pretext of being "Fair and Balanced", then quoting a memo from the White House verbatim as a news report. (CNN and MSNBC quote that memo verbatim as a news report without the "Fair and Balanced" spin.) But I think that your explanation is a lot more efficient.

[Xavier]

Why do people bash Fox for being biased but never the other news networks?

Because they bask in their own hypocrisy like a pig wallowing in its own shit.

That line reminds me of the Sean Penn / Colbert Metaphor-off, lol.

[sephir]

this should explain it:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CJEeyLeqJHc


Honestly im a little surprised Fox even aired this.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Sure Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and that Colmes guy are biased. But I wouldn't consider the rest of Fox news anymore biased than the other networks.

[Rigor]

You can't tell anyone about an FBI search & seizure? Thats sketch business.




















Want to learn more about Sketch Business? Buy my book!

[Yangsing]

I find Bill O'Reily entertaining, sort of how you find a clown entertaining. Olbermann on the other hand annoys me. What happened to the days of journalists just reporting the news.

[Alleya]

Sure Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and that Colmes guy are biased. But I wouldn't consider the rest of Fox news anymore biased than the other networks.

I'm interested to know what other news sources you use, then. When you step out of the realm of privatized network news funded by cooperations for-profit (so they have a lot to gain by making politicians happy), you start to realize how insanely biased those sources are. It's especially striking when you look at foreign media, which despite the usual anti-american slant, is far more factual and investigative. And I don't just mean biased politically, I also mean biased in a nationalistic way. For the last 6 months the only time I heard about Darfur or the Tamil Tigers was on foreign or independent media. Or how about the way the US military is forcing wounded veterans to give back their signing bonus because they didn't "complete their duty"? You won't hear that on CNN.

Septimus pretty much said it, the large media outlets in this country read press reports from the government and politicians as news stories and do nothing to expose the larger picture or offer alternative viewpoints, often because they are perceived as anti-american. That's why a video like this is so surprising to see. Even though the guy didn't quote or cite the specific passages of the patriot act he was refering to, I know what he was talking about. And I learned it through independent and foreign media, not major outlets from this country.

[Correction]

Sure Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and that Colmes guy are biased. But I wouldn't consider the rest of Fox news anymore biased than the other networks.

To be honest any personality-driven 'news' programming is going to be biased in one direction or the other. It's a problem whenever you produce news for consumption by the masses; it isn't long before sensationalism drives your editorial decisions. So instead of a sensible public face that addresses issues actually relevant to the lives of americans and people abroad:

http://www.csmonitor.com/

You get on CNN's side:

http://i12.tinypic.com/7xe2aoj.jpg

Summing it up I see:

Political Coverage: 3 headlines

CNN pats itself on the back over the youtube-driven debates
'Burn Rove Burn!'
Guiliani Hates Newspapers

World Coverage/Economic/other 'hard' news: 3 headlines

White House on growth figures
FBI issues warning on botnets
Pakistani leadership crisis

Sensationalist headlines: too many to count

Young boy with hideously scarred face pics inside!
Celphone death story earlier posted may have been fake omg!
Something blew up in somewhere you never heard about!
Evil cops taser woman in the neck! Video!
Old lady loses money! Video!
Video of dude exposing himself in a walmart! oh my!

Now examine FOX's front page for the day:

http://i9.tinypic.com/8fvnoua.jpg

World/Hard News: 7 headlines (!)

English teacher goes to trial over the 'muhammed' thing
Pakistani leadership crisis
Filipino police arrest coup suspects
Broadway strike ends
2 economics headlines
Paleological find in Spain

So far so good, but now you look at the rest of their major headlines:

'Dirty Bomb' Shocker:
Eastern european police arrest people trying to sell enriched Uranium. Really, that's all that happened. But the article speculates that it could have been used in a terrorist attack, and that is what fox is focusing on, and that's what they use in the headline. Give me a break.

Stacy Peterson coverage: another white woman was likely murdered so it's news. Same with the Baby Grace below

Debates coverage: Article hints at bias on CNN's part for airing questions by folks who may or may not have been Democrats, maybe. And that general guy was gay and he loves Hillary.

I could go on but this post is plenty long as it is. FOX and CNN wallow in the same pool of sensationalism but let's be honest, the level of dreck in FOX's coverage is immesurable to the point where it seeps into their hard news coverage. They fill their front page with irrelevant words meant to trigger a knee-jerk emotional response from their readership (I see 'dirty bomb' 'fascism' 'gay' 'Hillary' 'Porn Star' 'Faith Over Life' 'GETOSAMA' and that's just in their 'news' section)--and yes CNN is doing it too but just do the math: FOX is carrying that football much much further. It's hard to think they actually care about journalism rather than lining up the choir and preaching all day.

I have a pretty good feeling that if I repeat this exercise again tomorrow with the same three sites the pattern won't take long to form. When CNN sensationalizes bullshit it's because they're in the habit of catering to the current generation of online newsreaders (i.e. you and me) who love watching disgusting shit pour out of their browsers. But I can still trust the headline isn't overselling the story; I don't feel at all manipulated. When FOX does it it's because there's a second message getting a free ride on the 'fuck the liberals, be terrified of everything and believe the president' bandwagon they're driving all over the map. That guy who was mean to Giuliani at the debates? totally gay hillary-supporter. That uranium being sold on the black market? going to islamo-fascist terrorists bent on destroying you. One half of the coverage isn't insulting my intelligence; the other is.

[Olo401]

I find Bill O'Reily entertaining, sort of how you find a clown entertaining. Olbermann on the other hand annoys me. What happened to the days of journalists just reporting the news.

Olbermann happens to be one of the two nightly newscasts that I actually still trust on television. The other is the PBS Newshour.

In any case, I've been getting most of my news off the internet for a very long time.

[Septimus]

I find Bill O'Reily entertaining, sort of how you find a clown entertaining. Olbermann on the other hand annoys me. What happened to the days of journalists just reporting the news.

Olbermann happens to be one of the two nightly newscasts that I actually still trust on television. The other is the PBS Newshour.

In any case, I've been getting most of my news off the internet for a very long time.

Agreed. Kieth Olbermann has a good mix of real news, "fun" news (like Oddball and Worst Person in the World), and opinion. He doesn't try to hide his opinions as news or state them as fact. But you know, sometimes his Special Commentaries say the things that need to be said and are just not being said by other "journalists".

And does anyone else get the feeling that Kieth Olbermann would love to get into a fist-fight with O'rly? I would pay to see that.

[Charla]

When you step out of the realm of privatized network news funded by cooperations for-profit (so they have a lot to gain by making politicians happy), you start to realize how insanely biased those sources are.

Wait a minute.... you mean there are news outlets that aren't for-profit corporations? (/sarcasm in case you couldn't tell, although I can't actually think of a non-profit news outlet other than PBS and possibly the BBC)

I had been hearing about the illegal wiretaps and so forth repeatedly in the New York Times, and recently on NPR. I think Fox is just jumping on the bandwagon because they see which way the wind is blowing.

All you need to know about Fox:
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com...an_explode.gif

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Sure Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and that Colmes guy are biased. But I wouldn't consider the rest of Fox news anymore biased than the other networks.

So far so good, but now you look at the rest of their major headlines:

'Dirty Bomb' Shocker:
Eastern european police arrest people trying to sell enriched Uranium. Really, that's all that happened. But the article speculates that it could have been used in a terrorist attack, and that is what fox is focusing on, and that's what they use in the headline. Give me a break.

Maybe thats the point of the story, is that it could have been used in a terrorist attack. Whats biased about that? (I didn't read it.) I'm certainly not saying Fox isn't biased, because they are, I just don't get why they are bashed so much more than the other networks.

If the above example is a typical example of Fox being biased then I would argue CNN is far worse. When the reports came out that around 650 civilians died in October in Iraq, versus 3500 the previous October. Fox debated whether or not the surge was working etc. CNN however did a story on how U.S. soldiers were causing funeral homes to go out of business lol. That to me is just as bad as anything Fox has ever done, and just as biased as anything Fox has ever done, yet Fox is the one that gets bashed for being biased.

[Correction]

Sure Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and that Colmes guy are biased. But I wouldn't consider the rest of Fox news anymore biased than the other networks.

So far so good, but now you look at the rest of their major headlines:

'Dirty Bomb' Shocker:
Eastern european police arrest people trying to sell enriched Uranium. Really, that's all that happened. But the article speculates that it could have been used in a terrorist attack, and that is what fox is focusing on, and that's what they use in the headline. Give me a break.

Maybe thats the point of the story, is that it could have been used in a terrorist attack. Whats biased about that? (I didn't read it.)

It's shoddy reporting designed to terrify people. It's not strict political bias and I am reading a little bit into it but in all seriousness the article is riddled with 'this potentially could have killed YOU.'

The arrests heightened long-standing concerns that Eastern Europe is serving as a source of radioactive material for a "dirty bomb," which would use conventional explosives to scatter radioactive debris.

Experts say roughly 55 pounds of highly enriched uranium or plutonium is needed in most instances to fashion a crude nuclear device. But they say a tiny fraction of that is enough for a dirty bomb — a weapon whose main purpose would be to create fear and chaos, not human casualties.

Neither of these statements is explicitly sourced. The amount confiscated was one pound of weapons-grade radioactive material and what the story is doing here is saying 'it was enough to cause fear and chaos in the wrong hands.' THAT was the headline, and that's bad journalism to begin with, but then fox took this and ran with it all the way to the top of their headlines for the morning. The only reason to do this is not because it's newsworthy but because it paints a picture for the audience 'we are constantly under the threat of nuclear attacks.'

I freely admit that CNN does much the same in its reporting from time to bime, but I'm wondering if that funeral homes story made CNN's front-and-center headline. The reason it's easy to bash FOX is that it's more often an even more blatant sham than anything CNN has ever put forward, and comedy is easier to create when they've done all the work of exaggerating the facts for you.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Sure Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and that Colmes guy are biased. But I wouldn't consider the rest of Fox news anymore biased than the other networks.

So far so good, but now you look at the rest of their major headlines:

'Dirty Bomb' Shocker:
Eastern european police arrest people trying to sell enriched Uranium. Really, that's all that happened. But the article speculates that it could have been used in a terrorist attack, and that is what fox is focusing on, and that's what they use in the headline. Give me a break.

Maybe thats the point of the story, is that it could have been used in a terrorist attack. Whats biased about that? (I didn't read it.)

It's shoddy reporting designed to terrify people. It's not strict political bias and I am reading a little bit into it but in all seriousness the article is riddled with 'this potentially could have killed YOU.'

The arrests heightened long-standing concerns that Eastern Europe is serving as a source of radioactive material for a "dirty bomb," which would use conventional explosives to scatter radioactive debris.

Experts say roughly 55 pounds of highly enriched uranium or plutonium is needed in most instances to fashion a crude nuclear device. But they say a tiny fraction of that is enough for a dirty bomb — a weapon whose main purpose would be to create fear and chaos, not human casualties.

Neither of these statements is explicitly sourced. The amount confiscated was one pound of weapons-grade radioactive material and what the story is doing here is saying 'it was enough to cause fear and chaos in the wrong hands.' THAT was the headline, and that's bad journalism to begin with, but then fox took this and ran with it all the way to the top of their headlines for the morning. The only reason to do this is not because it's newsworthy but because it paints a picture for the audience 'we are constantly under the threat of nuclear attacks.'

I freely admit that CNN does much the same in its reporting from time to bime, but I'm wondering if that funeral homes story made CNN's front-and-center headline. The reason it's easy to bash FOX is that it's more often an even more blatant sham than anything CNN has ever put forward, and comedy is easier to create when they've done all the work of exaggerating the facts for you.

I saw the CNN story at the gym on one of their shows, so it was whatever that qualifies as. (Afternoon show.)

I will concede that Fox is more blatant because they put it out there, "Hey, were conservative." But a sham? They admit they are conservative, you know what your getting when you watch it. CNN however doesn't say "Hey, were liberal." Thats the sham in my mind.