Bias on Fox News???

[Pam]

Sara (regarding news with a "left" slant)....I think you answered this yourself. I got this from the thread about the Satirical View of Terror Alert Warnings.

Your post..."I was just reading the current issue of Newsweek. They made a joke about every time news comes out that is bad for Bush or takes the focus off Bush....the terrorist alert goes up."

I don't mean to pick on you, but there's plenty of proof out there if one is looking.

[Edwina's Secretary]

but there's plenty of proof out there if one is looking

Pam....probably right next to the WMDs!

[lizzielou742]

Oh that film should be great!! I can't wait to see it!! I hate Fox "News." Watching that channel makes me want to kick someone!!! (Bill O'Reilley, maybe?)

I remember watching him when I was a kid on Hard Copy. I can't take him seriously after that.


Did anyone else see the C-SPAN coverage back earlier this year of that book convention where he got all mad at Al Franken?? That was great!!

[Pam]

Lizzielou I'm sorry that you don't like Bill, but then different strokes for different folks. When I was a lot younger I was a flaming liberal - even voted for George McGovern (probably one of the 100 votes that he got that year. ) Nowadays I find Bill to be a pretty good spokeman for my feelings on a lot of things. The following I think speaks to this thread. I have bolded a few statements where Bill certainly does not "coddle" the conservatives. Read it if you dare. Warning: it is long. I would be hard pressed to find a liberal criticizing another of like mind. Can we say "fair and balanced?"

Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight.

Dissent or dishonor? That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." America was founded on dissent, that is loyal opposition to government policies. And that's a good thing. But now some Americans are confusing true dissent with dishonesty and dishonor.

"Talking Points" believes the Bill Clinton situation is a good example. While president, Mr. Clinton did a number of questionable things. Conservatives especially were angered that Mr. Clinton used the Oval Office in an unseemly way and then lied about it. The dissent over that was absolutely appropriate, but some right-wingers went overboard and began accusing Mr. Clinton of all kinds of deeds that were unproven and sometimes even defamatory.

That kind of behavior is simply dishonorable. Just because you don't like a politician doesn't give you the right to lie about them. Dishonor is defined as treating someone in a degrading manner, trying to injure them personally. There's no place for that in America.

So, flash forward to President Bush, who's being accused of many things, some of them flat-out untrue. For example, the Senate Intelligence Committee did not find any evidence that the Bush administration attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgment on WMDs in Iraq — so reads conclusion 83 of the Senate report.


Thus, all the bomb-throwers who accuse Mr. Bush of lying about WMDs have been dishonorable. They were wrong and had no proof to begin with.They are guilty of a slander, a dishonorable act.

Other examples, Whoopi Goldberg made crude jokes about Mr. Bush's name. Is that dissent or dishonor? Whether you like him or not, Mr. Bush is the president. It is dishonorable for Ms. Goldberg crudely to mock him without purpose. There's no dissent in that and it reflects poorly on her.

Meryl Streep said, "If you're going to invite Jesus on the campaign bus and ask him to stump for you, you'd better listen carefully to what he has to say first. He did not say 'blessed is the preemptive strike.'"

Dissent or dishonor? In this case, Ms. Streep is dissenting. She's objecting to a policy matter and that's legit. See the difference? Goldberg is disrespectful. Streep is entitled to her opinion about an issue, although I'd love to talk to her about it.

Michael Moore's movie is dissent, but his dishonesty within the film is dishonorable. Also, when he runs around Europe bashing America, he's giving comfort to our enemies, totally dishonorable and disgraceful in a time of war. You have to be careful where you utter anti-American statements. What's OK in Berkeley is not OK in Paris.

Finally, let's take a look at conservative Ann Coulter. She writes,"Kerry picks a pretty-boy milquetoast as his running mate, narrowly edging out a puppy for the spot."

Dissent or dishonor? Well, it's dissent. She's simply making fun of John Edwards. Although to be fair, short of Newt Gingrich, Coulter would have been displeased by anyone Kerry picked.

Once again, dissent must be protected, but dishonorable behavior must be condemned.

And that's "The Memo."

[lizbud]

Jonza,

I don't watch FOX news, so I don't have an opinion as to
their "balance" or lack of it. I did see an interesting blog piece
today that talks about North American news reporting in general.

Althought I haven't finished the article yet, it does look like
interesting reading.

[/url]

[Edwina's Secretary]

That's alright Pam...I voted for Nixon once!

But O'Reilly is being disingenuous here. He nearly breaks his arm patting himself on the back. I can cite plenty of examples of liberals criticising other liberals....although I am hard pressed to find in this article where O'Reilly actually criticises anyone except Whoopi Goldberg and Michael Moore. Ann was just simply making fun when she calls Edwards a pretty-boy milquetoast, but Whoopi was being dishonorable when she mocked Bush.

He refers to those who believed Bush lied as bomb-throwers. Is that simply making fun or mocking????? Or dishonorable? I didn't see anyone throw any bombs?

Just look at the difference here....when he speaks of Clinton he says..."deeds that were unproven and sometimes even defamatory."

Bush's critics meanwhile "had no proof to begin with. They are guilty of a slander, a dishonorable act."

So we have unproven and sometimes defamatory on the one hand and no proof = slander and a dishonorable act on the other.

Fair and balanced????

[Pam]

Originally posted by Edwina's Secretary
That's alright Pam...I voted for Nixon once!

Thanks for going to the trouble of reading it through anyway. We may agree to disagree on things and that's OK.

[DJFyrewolf36]

From the article posted above

I think they fell victim to what I call the "Particle Principle." Allow me to use an analogy from science, quantum physics to be precise. Scientists know that the appearence of a particle is directly affected by the person observing it. In effect, the observer helps create the actual physical properties of the particle. News gathering often works in the same way. The observer creates the story by the act of observing it ... or writing, broadcasting or e-mailing it. The story can't exist without the observer (the reporter) and thus is directly affected by all of his or her beliefs, prejudices, values, etc.

This is pretty much how I feel. The only fair and balanced anyone is ever going to get is the type of fairness that comes from reading/watching more than one news source. Reporters ARE human after all and run into the same human failings. Stage an auto wreck in front of three people and you'll get three different stories.

[jonza]

Thanks Lizbud, an interesting article.

I suppose it all boils down to "Wishful thinking" in the end. It's much easier to believe something if it fits what you want to believe. (I particularly like the "Particle Principal" theory too).

Interestingly enough, when I made my first venture into the world of the Dog House, I found some satirical articles that were derogatory about Tony Blair. But I got severely dumped on for attacking Americans and the administration. (Perhaps it was because I was also foolish enough to mention the American flag!). I hadn't made it clear that what really irked me was the increasing use of "spin" and advertising tricks by the British Government.

I worked for nearly 20 years in the advertising industry as a photographer, with some of the largest international agencies among my clients, but got completely and absolutely sick of the one sided fixation on profit above all, of "Psychological Profiling" being the new goal, and any other tool that could be used to increase turnover and profit. The truth came a distant second. Nowadays it's "Branding" and "Image" that are the buzz words. Anything to make a buck. Everything is becoming commercialized.

I was also sometimes involved in distorting the truth in order to sell more products (is politics also a product by the way?), but in the end I got so tired of the shallowness that I changed my vocation and now only work on educational material. As I found out, I feel much better helping to sell knowledge than gasoline or washing powder. Even if I do earn less money doing it.

We can't measure human values like honesty, tolerance and compassion in dollars and cents. Greed and extravagance seem to be the order of the day, and "All the News that Fits" the message from the media instead of honest, unbiased reporting. Same old story.

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by jonza

We can't measure human values like honesty, tolerance and compassion in dollars and cents. Greed and extravagance seem to be the order of the day

Shaq and Kobe???

[nibblets]

Whetever slant to the left Fox may put out gets slammed right back over to the right by Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.
I listen to Sean Hannity's radio show when I drive home sometimes just for the entertainment value of listening to them get all worked up over the Liberals.
I heard a saying once, something like you point a finger at me..three fingers point back at thee. I hate partisan politics...they make it out like the Good ol' boys vs the Hippies. Sheesh...gimme a break. FYI- I sit just slightly left of center... We don't have a candidate...not one that could actually get elected anyway.

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by nibblets
FYI- I sit just slightly left of center...

I have to sit in the center or my butt falls asleep ....
I don't have alot of padding down there...

[jonza]

Well my my! Poor old Fox News. They are being put through the wringer nowadays aren't they!

Advocacy Groups Challenge Fox News Slogan By JAKE COYLE

NEW YORK (AP) - Fox News' use of the slogan "Fair and Balanced'' constitutes deceptive advertising, two political advocacy groups claimed Monday in a petition filed with the Federal Trade Commission.

Liberal MoveOn.org and historically nonpartisan Common Cause assert that Fox News' reports are "deliberately and consistently distorted and twisted to promote the Republican Party of the U.S. and an extreme right-wing viewpoint.''

Alleging consumer fraud, the complaint calls for the FTC to order Fox News, consistently the highest-rated cable news network, to cease and desist from using the slogan.
Irena Briganti, a Fox News spokeswoman, told The Associated Press that "while this is clearly a transparent publicity stunt, we recognize all forms of free speech and wish them well.''

In a statement later Monday, FTC Chairman Timothy J. Muris indicated the petition has little chance.
"I am not aware of any instance in which the Federal Trade Commission has investigated the slogan of a news organization. There is no way to evaluate this petition without evaluating the content of the news at issue. That is a task the First Amendment leaves to the American people, not a government agency.''

But Chellie Pingree, president of Common Cause, said the legal actions were consistent with the First Amendment. "Fox has no obligation under the law to be fair and balanced, just not to market itself as fair and balanced,'' he said.

After a press conference announcing the petition, members of MoveOn.org and Common Cause marched to the Fox News Headquarters to hand out DVDs of the recent documentary "Outfoxed,'' which alleges a pattern of right-wing biases in the network's reporting, citing statements by former Fox employees and internal memos. The documentary is "Exhibit A'' in the FTC petition.

At the press conference, Common Cause's Pingree said the petition was consistent with the 34-year-old citizen advocacy group's history, and a response to the "growing firestorm about what's going on with the media.''

It could take months for the Federal Trade Commission, which hears all consumer complaints, to judge whether the complaint has merit.
Fox has sought to trademark its "Fair and Balanced'' motto, which also has been met with legal action.

Independent Media Institute, a not-for-profit promoter of independent journalism, filed a petition last December with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office challenging Fox's trademark request.
The IMI's petition claims that the term "fair and balanced'' is so prevalent as to be generic, and is "entirely mis-descriptive'' when it comes to Fox News.

Last summer, Fox News Channel tried to block publication of liberal humorist Al Franken's book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right,'' saying it made unauthorized use of Fox's "fair and balanced'' slogan.
The judge dismissed Fox's case, saying it was "wholly without merit,'' and the trademark "Fair and Balanced,'' registered by Fox in 1998, was weak. He also said the network was "trying to undermine the First Amendment.''

[lizzielou742]

Outfoxed is currently the #1 selling DVD on Amazon.com at only $9.95. Buy it here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...ce&s=dvd&n=130

Interesting videos:
Outfoxed trailer -
http://http.dvlabs.com/carolina/Trailer_A.wmv

Bill O'Reilly -
http://mfile.akamai.com/11672/wmv/cd...inal_large.wmv