I'm done with FOX.

[spectrrr]

Originally Posted by zonedar

BTW, to the Canadians and other allies, Thanks for being there for your friends.

+1

Originally Posted by Seanohue

Do what I do; don't watch TV. I think it's been 9 months since I've seen a live TV program.

+2
The rare TV shows I'm interested in watching, I stream.

Originally Posted by ActionAndy

...let me clarify: I was not trying to insult you. I'm trying to say this: Don't let people that don't matter matter. Getting deeply offended by words gives the speaker power. Do not give him that power by reacting.

Terribly stated the first time around, you make your point well this time.

[mithrilG60]

Originally Posted by spectrrr

The rare TV shows I'm interested in watching, I stream.

Or just download them...... there's no commercials at all then

Originally Posted by ChicagoWhiteSox

FOX News is a news channel. They give news. Some of there shows more than others. But the main point is they give news. News that is by far more balanced than any other national news channel. If I am equating FOX news as entertainment, then where do people get their national news? FOX news leads all national news. But if you believe that the majority are watching FOX news for entertainment, then i ask again, where do they get there news from on TV?


With regards to the second bold highlight, again, some news channels skew more than others. I believe that FOX news is the most balanced of them all That is why the majority of Americans wanting news turns to FOX news. If they didnt like FOX news, they wouldnt watch it. If they wanted entertainment, they would watch Jon Stewart. If they wanted far skewed news, they would watch msnbc. But the numbers dont lie. People are watching FOX news for balanced news.

None of that really discounts my point though. Every American newscast I've ever seen, and most Canadian ones as well, are more entertainment and less news. When I say "entertainment" I'm not talking about the satirical comedy produced in a quasi-newscast format that people like Jon Stewart or Rick Mercer produce. I'm talking about the fact that there's more emphasis on the presentation value of what they're saying than the actual substance of the content or veracity of their reporting. Compared to the reporting that comes out of BBC WorldNews or CBC's The National, FoxNews is primarily an entertainment channel and unfortunately one that's regarded as not much more than a bad joke by much of the world (I'll take your word for it that it is taken seriously within the US).

I find it honestly very scary how many people form their world opinions based on the reporting of syndicated network news programs. The fact that most people have forgotten how to think for themselves if it's not presented to them in a flashy yet concise 30 second soundbite puts a HUGE amount of power in the hands of a small few that are motivated only by ratings and are therefore easily corrupted to the agenda of a small minority.

[Rockestone]

Originally Posted by mithrilG60

Or just download them...... there's no commercials at all then



None of that really discounts my point though. Every American newscast I've ever seen, and most Canadian ones as well, are more entertainment and less news. When I say "entertainment" I'm not talking about the satirical comedy produced in a quasi-newscast format that people like Jon Stewart or Rick Mercer produce. I'm talking about the fact that there's more emphasis on the presentation value of what they're saying than the actual substance of the content or veracity of their reporting. Compared to the reporting that comes out of BBC WorldNews or CBC's The National, FoxNews is primarily an entertainment channel and unfortunately one that's regarded as not much more than a bad joke by much of the world (I'll take your word for it that it is taken seriously within the US).

I find it honestly very scary how many people form their world opinions based on the reporting of syndicated network news programs. The fact that most people have forgotten how to think for themselves if it's not presented to them in a flashy yet concise 30 second soundbite puts a HUGE amount of power in the hands of a small few that are motivated only by ratings and are therefore easily corrupted to the agenda of a small minority.

B B C = Boring!

There is nothing wrong with adding a little spice to the presentation of the news as long as the product being delivered is NEWS!

[spectrrr]

Originally Posted by mithrilG60

Or just download them...... there's no commercials at all then

*whistles innocently* It's a public forum

Originally Posted by mithrilG60

None of that really discounts my point though. Every American newscast I've ever seen, and most Canadian ones as well, are more entertainment and less news. When I say "entertainment" I'm not talking about the satirical comedy produced in a quasi-newscast format that people like Jon Stewart or Rick Mercer produce. I'm talking about the fact that there's more emphasis on the presentation value of what they're saying than the actual substance of the content or veracity of their reporting. Compared to the reporting that comes out of BBC WorldNews or CBC's The National, FoxNews is primarily an entertainment channel and unfortunately one that's regarded as not much more than a bad joke by much of the world (I'll take your word for it that it is taken seriously within the US).

I find it honestly very scary how many people form their world opinions based on the reporting of syndicated network news programs. The fact that most people have forgotten how to think for themselves if it's not presented to them in a flashy yet concise 30 second soundbite puts a HUGE amount of power in the hands of a small few that are motivated only by ratings and are therefore easily corrupted to the agenda of a small minority.

see comment below

Originally Posted by Rockestone

B B C = Boring!

There is nothing wrong with adding a little spice to the presentation of the news as long as the product being delivered is NEWS!

Originally Posted by Rockestone

I reiterate, it does not matter the presentation as long as you are being delivered the news. You prefer some stuff shirt with a monotone voice reading off of a sheet of paper. I prefer a more high paced presentation that doesn't cause drool to form at the corners of my mouth.

You are correct, IF the content is good, there's nothing wrong with a flashy presentation. Only problem is, in today's televised world, there is NO source I am aware of that consistently delivers both. Occasionally delivers both, yes... but consistently delivers? 'fraid not, its generally one or the other

[heavyd]

I watched segments of that Red Eye show when it first aired. It's supposed to be witty and funny, but it's neither. It's actually unbelievably bad television. I'm amazed that it is still around.

[spectrrr]

Originally Posted by RBOrrell

I am deeply offended by not just this particular episode, but the more deeply rooted stereotypes and ignorances that are the real reason that they said these things in the first place. While I don't want to appear hypocritical (and in no way am I trying to accuse any BOTL here), in my experiences, the "worldlyness" of most citizens of the USA is below that of most other countries. Why is that? They don't have to be because they are as powerful as they are. However, the ignorance of Canada (or any other country for that manner) bites them once in a while like this particular show.

However I don't think its "they dont have to be because they are as powerful as they are". I think its because on a whole, the majority of our citizens are rarely required to interact with other countries. We have 1/3 of the freakin continent, citizens that do venture into Canada find that is not very different from us, so they have little opportunity to "grow" their "world view" because it basically looks to them like anywhere else stateside they've been. Got to any place in Europe, everyone speaks 2+ languages and has traveled around the place BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO (to clarify, that's a good thing). They are surrounded on all sides by many other equally small countries and thus interact with them. We are just too big with no one to play with!

Dogs set the standard for integrity. We should all hope to be so true.

Originally Posted by BC-Axeman

Dogs set the standard for integrity. We should all hope to be so true.

+1

[hotreds]

[spectrrr]

Originally Posted by BC-Axeman

Dogs set the standard for integrity. We should all hope to be so true.

touche +1

[BroncoHorvath]

I would like to see those 4 clowns out on a mission over there so they could experience what every soldier goes through every time they go out on missions no matter what country they are from.
They have no class and even though they tried to apologize, I choose not to accpet their apologies...

[14holestogie]

Fox fair and balanced? Yeah, OK.

About as balanced as MSNBC.

I am a little more unbalanced than my therapist thinks, I guess.

[Starscream]

Originally Posted by 14holestogie

Fox fair and balanced? Yeah, OK.

About as balanced as MSNBC.

I am a little more unbalanced than my therapist thinks, I guess.

Fox is fair and balanced. It balances the scale with MSNBC.

Originally Posted by 14holestogie

Fox fair and balanced? Yeah, OK.

About as balanced as MSNBC.

I am a little more unbalanced than my therapist thinks, I guess.

How is FOX not fair? Or balanced? Please explain.

Nobody has clean shoes in the news "reporting" business. TV news is the worst just because of the short attention span of the audience. The internet tends to have more in depth information. Yet the TV news is a good place to hear the headlines in order to start to find out more information. If every time you hear a story with a statement made by some "expert" and you don't hear an opposing statement, even if it's from a Devil's Advocate point of view, then you are being editorialized to. Often, what is left out is more important than what is said.

Looks like it comes on late at night, probably a reason for that.

Many articles posted on Drudge are sourced from newspapers. If newspapers shut down then there will be less sources for Drudge to draw from.

There will still need to be reporters and there will have to be a way for reporters to make a living. They have to either sell the story or the eyes that are reading or watching it. You have to please the buyers.

If your selling to the government (PBS, CBC, BBC) then your product will reflect that. I call those sources Government News. Some sources don't seem to care about surviving, there agenda is so strong (CBS, NYT, etc.). I call these agenda driven news sources. Some like Al Jazeera are open about there leanings. Some like Reuters are more subtle but persistent. It all goes through a filter somewhere.

FOXNEWS is a partial balance to a network like CNN, but where is the balance to MSNBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, etc. The balance is way skewed, IMO.

But not on the internet. Here you can do your own investigating. But anyone can post anything. The noise level is high. Just look at how many people are taken in by urban myths.

Originally Posted by mithrilG60

Technically me telling you that the sun rose in the east and Tom Cruise is a Scientologist classifieds as "news" too, that doesn't mean actually news.

It's not news if it's not investigated and reported in an open unbiased manner and Fox isn't particularly well noted for practicing that style of journalism. At least outside the US, they're known more for being the biased public mouth piece of the Bush Administration's policy wonks than for reputable reporting. All things considered, being perceived as the propaganda dept for an extremely unpopular president is hardly a ringing endorsement of your journalism integrity. Fox as ALOT of work to do if they want to salvage their reputation as a serious news organization, most of the world considers then naught more than a bad joke.

Originally Posted by spectrrr

2) That FOX does not actually broadcast well investigated and reported news in an unbiased manner. My response: YUP, no argument there. just don't forget all the other networks. Just cause a network broadcasts the news you like to hear doesn't make it any more accurate than the network that broadcasts the news you don't like to hear. In reality, I don't think there is a single USA based network that broadcasts FAIR, UNBIASED, ACCURATE news. "left", "right", doesn't matter... its still sh!t, with a different perfume sprayed on it.

Originally Posted by TheRiddick

Funny thing is that most who tell you that FOX is biased and not reputable will also tell you that they themselves never watched it, they simply "heard" from their friend, who heard from his pregnant girlfriend, who heard from her way too liberal college professor who got her pregnant, who heard ir from his boyfriend, who heard... You get the picture. Kids play this game called "broken phone", too bad so many adults still do.
You're absolutely right about perception, its the keyword to this discussion.

I start my day with various Russian news streams, then move over to San Francisco Chron (as left as it gets), then NY Daily News (left again), MSN (still very left) and only then FOX cable (mostly financial news coverage and some prime time).

If there is anything biased on FOX I would LOVE for anyone to point it out to me, for every right winger they ALWAYS have a left winger chime in, if that's not "unbiased" then I have no idea what qualifies. It is their company policy to split the views presented 50/50 and they actually stick to it. Name ANY other news media outlet that does that, here or abroad. After reading all the left leaning "news", I find FOX unbiased and very refreshing. Although sometimes too soft when taking on some issues or people. IMO.
Any specific recent news item you can point to where you felt FOX did not cover it properly? TIA.

But as you said, its the perception. And not reality that FOX is biased.

And BTW, I am absolutely sure that if I start watching BBC (again), I WILL find problems with their coverage as well, and quickly so. Just start with their well known anti-semitic stance, main reason I stopped watching them some time ago. If that's your definition of "truth" and "balance", then I can easily see why you (you and "the world") and I disagree on what "news" means. The only "truth" BBC reports on is EPL score lines, but I get much better coverage of that elsewhere.

First Bold Highlight- If FOX isnt "news" as you defined, why are people watching it? Its not because they want entertainment. FOX investigates and reports unbiased news. Maybe you should watch it and you will find that there are two sides given to every story. They will give the Dems view and also the Republicans view. If FOX wasnt fair and balanced, then CNN would have the most viewers. But they dont. So let me get this straight, you believe that news must be investigated and given in an unbiased opinoin right? How do you explain BBC? Ive seen people here post that BBC is actual news and is unbiased? I think we all know where they stand. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-BBC-News.html

Second Bold- Thats total BS. I think your getting biased mouthpeice for Bush and respect and fair coverage of Bush mixed up. If youve ever watched FOX in the past, you will know that Bush has taken just as much heat as support from them.


Third bold- What are they trying to salvage? Getting even more viewers watching? Their rep. has already been set.


Fourth- see first response


Fifth-

Last Bold- You read far left news and even watch far left news and have come to decide that FOX is unbiased and fair with their news.
There. You read it from someone who reads the San Fran. Chor., NY Post, and watches msnbc.

[14holestogie]

Seems we're arguing OPINIONS.

We all win.

Originally Posted by 14holestogie

Seems we're arguing OPINIONS.

We all win.

I would call it "expressing points of view". Just my opinion.