I'm done with FOX.

[Rockestone]

Originally Posted by pnoon

I've said it before in this thread and I'll say it again.

Debate/discuss the issues. Keep the personal insults to yourselves.

Sorry Pnoon.

Got a little carried away. I should count to 10 before I post.

[pnoon]

Originally Posted by Rockestone

Sorry Pnoon.

Got a little carried away. I should count to 10 before I post.

Thank you, Sir.

The part of your post I did not quote would have been fine on its own. Clearly discussing/debating the issue. I only elaborate here for those reading to hopefully see and understand the difference.

Now back to the "news"

[14holestogie]

Originally Posted by andysutherland

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

Exactly what I'm trying to state. Anyone who is getting their news from a single source isn't getting the whole story. Whether it's straight news, "entertainment" news, satire or whatever the format, it is what it is by itself. It's up to you to digest it all together and draw your own conclusions.

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.

Originally Posted by mithrilG60

The highlighted portion is the key right there. Sadly it's still not stacking up too well in Fox's favour....
It's also a pretty pathetic commentary when people first have to be entertained in order to be informed. A large part of the reason why the BBC or CBC is so much better is precisely because they assume that they're dealing with an adult audience that doesn't need to be distracted by showmanship in order to keep their attention. Instead they just concentrate on digging up and reporting the facts. I'd rather have to think for myself than be bottle fed some over-opinionated and under-educated pundit's myopic view on the world as if it were either news or fact

FOX doenst give news? Last time I watched FOX, it was news. And i wasnt entertained by the news they were giving.

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

[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

[WildBlueSooner]

Although when I am watching news (BBC) I am entertained enough by the stories of the day..I have never had a craving for more flash from them.

[mithrilG60]

Originally Posted by spectrrr

*whistles innocently* It's a public forum

Downloading copyrighted materials such as dvd/blu-ray movies and music which is not made publicly available without a purchase cost is different, however there's nothing wrong/illegal with downloading tv programing. It's already public domain since it's being broadcast on open airwaves which means copyright doesn't apply unless you in turn are trying to resell/profit from it.

Originally Posted by ChicagoWhiteSox

FOX doenst give news? Last time I watched FOX, it was news. And i wasnt entertained by the news they were giving.

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.

[Bear]

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.

Once again, it's my opinion.

While I agree that news being delivered in a dry, pretentious manner gets old fast and doesn't serve it's viewership. The same could be said of the polar opposite (Naked News anyone?).

I'm not familiar with Fox. I also don't watch CNBC, BBC, ABC, CBS or NBC as my main source for televised news so I will refrain from commenting on the quality of their material. I'm Canadian and as such I have access to a great Publicly owned network called the CBC. They have great National news content (The National), do a good job of presenting a Coast to Coast view of the issues and make a concerted effort to remain unaffiliated to any one Political Party.

I really enjoy watching the news and reading the newspaper (Toronto Star), but I also don't rely exclusively on either of them to get the whole story. When there's an issue that I feel strongly about and that I find I need to know more about I research the topic.

What I'm getting at I guess is that the media / medium can't (or at least shouldn't) be the sole method of educating one's self on how our deepest opinions are formed.

Oh, and the four clowns who caused the uproar...? asshats (IMO of course ).

[spectrrr]

Originally Posted by mithrilG60

Downloading copyrighted materials such as dvd/blu-ray movies and music which is not made publicly available without a purchase cost is different, however there's nothing wrong/illegal with downloading tv programing. It's already public domain since it's being broadcast on open airwaves which means copyright doesn't apply unless you in turn are trying to resell/profit from it.

Tell that to the lawyers that briefly harassed a friend of mine for downloading 3 episodes of Prison Break a few years back. He wasn't running the IP filter I use

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.

I think you need to clarify which point you are arguing, they seem to be a little muddled together.

1) That FOX is biased towards the right. My response: no question, you are correct. Just as the rest of the networks are equally biased towards the left. Don't hate on FOX for that unless you also plan on hating on the other networks for being biased the other way.

Since we're talking about "fair" and "accurate" reporting, do be careful with the Bush jabs. I consider all the other networks to be the propaganda department for our current airhead, and could argue that their journalistic reputation with the "right" half of the political world is just as bad as FOX with the "left". People voted for change, but mark my words, they didn't get it. In a few years, I promise you he will have done just as much damage as Bush did, if not more *shudder*.... In other words, try to leave the politics out of a subject that has two sides to the political coin, neither of which we should be discussing here. *envisions a warning from Peter in his future*

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.

[pnoon]

Originally Posted by spectrrr

*envisions a warning from Peter in his future*

*you would be correct, my friend. :-)*

[TheRiddick]

Originally Posted by mithrilG60

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.

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.

[14holestogie]

Originally Posted by ChicagoWhiteSox

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

Something like this:

Originally Posted by spectrrr

1) That FOX is biased towards the right. My response: no question, you are correct. Just as the rest of the networks are equally biased towards the left. Don't hate on FOX for that unless you also plan on hating on the other networks for being biased the other way.



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... a different still sh!t, with it's perfume sprayed on it.

Could not have stated it better. The fact you agree with any network's views does not mean they are any more balanced, they're just saying things you like to hear.

[Rockestone]

Originally Posted by Bear

While I agree that news being delivered in a dry, pretentious manner gets old fast and doesn't serve it's viewership. The same could be said of the polar opposite (Naked News anyone?).

I'm not familiar with Fox. I also don't watch CNBC, BBC, ABC, CBS or NBC as my main source for televised news so I will refrain from commenting on the quality of their material. I'm Canadian and as such I have access to a great Publicly owned network called the CBC. They have great National news content (The National), do a good job of presenting a Coast to Coast view of the issues and make a concerted effort to remain unaffiliated to any one Political Party.

I really enjoy watching the news and reading the newspaper (Toronto Star), but I also don't rely exclusively on either of them to get the whole story. When there's an issue that I feel strongly about and that I find I need to know more about I research the topic.

What I'm getting at I guess is that the media / medium can't (or at least shouldn't) be the sole method of educating one's self on how our deepest opinions are formed.

Oh, and the four clowns who caused the uproar...? asshats (IMO of course ).

I agree. You should not rely on only one news source for your information. My comes from radio, newspapers (until they shut down!) and then television...in that order.

[Starscream]

Originally Posted by Rockestone

I agree. You should not rely on only one news source for your information. My comes from radio, newspapers (until they shut down!) and then television...in that order.

I don't think that newspapers will all shut down as predicted in the near future. I do beleive that they will become more of an online business rather than a paper printing business in the future. Fewer and fewer are buying newspapers these days while more are getting their information from online sources such as the Drudge Report.

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.