Discussion: FOX News

[Schlosser85]

Well I don't see why the Huffington Post felt the guys holding the 9/11 banner were "ridiculous".

[Marx]

Thank you for the links imdaly.

[Dr. Evil]

How the heck are these pictures 'ridiculous'??

If someone holding an American flag, or wearing a shirt with the flag on it, or a shirt that says 'Restoring Honor', or heaven forbid a shirt with a George Washington quote on it are the best examples that site could find of 'ridiculousness' at the rally, then I'd say that was a pretty ridiculous-free event!



You didn't look too hard then.

Check out Glenn Beck's own site for good pictures of the historic event:

On Stage: Page 1 (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44930/), Page 2 (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44932/), Page 3 (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44934/), Page 4 (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44936/), Page 5 (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44938/)

The People: Page 1 (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44940/), Page 2 (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44942/), Page 3 (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44944/), Page 4 (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44946/), Page 5 (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44948/)

The Crowd: Page 1 (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44950/), Page 2 (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44952/), Page 3 (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44954/), Page 4 (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44956/), Page 5 (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44958/)

This was an interesting photo:

http://media.glennbeck.com/828/images/082910glenn06.jpg

For those who are not sports fans, the man with Beck is Baseball Superstar Albert Puljols, who's Hispanic.

[Marx]

Well I don't see why the Huffington Post felt the guys holding the 9/11 banner were "ridiculous".

Maybe it's being seen as 'ridiculous' because some people are still trying to capitalize on it? I don't know.

[Schlosser85]

I think the people holding the sign were probably sincere. Unfortunately I also think they're gullible and they've been taken in by hucksters like Beck and Palin who use the well-intentioned masses to further themselves.

[Heretic]

I love that people wearing tshirts of the founding fathers and buttons celebrating constitutional rights are somehow considered partisan and ridiculous.

Although, I will point out that one guy is wearing a tshirt that has a quote from george Washington about how you cant govern a country without god and the bible...and George Washington never said that...the quote is simply made up.

But yeah...if it is partisan to support the constitution and respect the founding fathers, then consider me partisan. If that is clearly right wing, then that would mean that left wing does not believe in those things? If any liberals want to go on record condemning the founding fathers and the constitution, then take your best shot and I'll see you at the voting booths.

[Hobodeluxe]

I love that people wearing tshirts of the founding fathers and buttons celebrating constitutional rights are somehow considered partisan and ridiculous.

Although, I will point out that one guy is wearing a tshirt that has a quote from george Washington about how you cant govern a country without god and the bible...and George Washington never said that...the quote is simply made up.

But yeah...if it is partisan to support the constitution and respect the founding fathers, then consider me partisan. If that is clearly right wing, then that would mean that left wing does not believe in those things? If any liberals want to go on record condemning the founding fathers and the constitution, then take your best shot and I'll see you at the voting booths.

a couple of points. the "founding fathers" disagreed on a lot of issues. so using a blanket statement like "I support the founding father's positions" is a little ambiguous. which founding father's position on which issue?

also I do take a little offense when someone lays claim to the flag or the constitution,or God as fully supporting their position on an issue. To me that's like them saying "If you disagree with me you're Un-American or Godless or both"

[Hobodeluxe]

This was an interesting photo:

http://media.glennbeck.com/828/images/082910glenn06.jpg

For those who are not sports fans, the man with Beck is Baseball Superstar Albert Puljols, who's Hispanic.

reminds me of this

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb33/hobodeluxe/48215640.jpg

I wonder why Glenn didn't go on one of his social justice rants when he was "honoring " MLK?
Seems like the perfect opportunity to decry King and Jesus' teachings.

[Hobodeluxe]

Glenn Beck to open a new news website (http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2010/08/some_background.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

[hippie_hunter]

Glenn Beck to open a new news website (http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2010/08/some_background.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
That sounds as if it'll be just as bad, if not worse, as the Huffington Post.

[Hobodeluxe]

That sounds as if it'll be just as bad, if not worse, as the Huffington Post.

meh Huffpost is an entertainment/world news aggregate on one side and a blog posting/op -ed site on the other. They have conservatives blogging there too.

I think this will be more along the lines of Alex Jones meets Pat Robertson.

and did you notice who had a front row seat right behind Glenn during the rally?

John "the Catholic church is the great whore of Revelations" Hagee.

[Hobodeluxe]

Propaganda works (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht8PmEjxUfg&feature=player_embedded)

if it wasn't so sad it'd be funny

[hippie_hunter]

meh Huffpost is an entertainment/world news aggregate on one side and a blog posting/op -ed site on the other. They have conservatives blogging there too.

I think this will be more along the lines of Alex Jones meets Pat Robertson.

and did you notice who had a front row seat right behind Glenn during the rally?

John "the Catholic church is the great whore of Revelations" Hagee.
Even the news on the Huffington Post is biased as hell. Although this would probably be worse because while absurdly biased, the Huffington Post still posts well....things that happen. Beck's site on the other hand, would probably flat out make **** up.

[Hobodeluxe]

Even the news on the Huffington Post is biased as hell. Although this would probably be worse because while absurdly biased, the Huffington Post still posts well....things that happen. Beck's site on the other hand, would probably flat out make **** up.


the news on Huffpost is biased as hell?

hmm here's today's news links from Huffpost


Headline story is from that liberal rag the WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704421104575464012356644550.html?m od=rss_US_News)

here's an AP article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/31/murkowski-concedes-alaska_n_701417.html)

another AP article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/31/campbell-crowley-price-ethics-investigation_n_701390.html)

another AP article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/31/obama-ira)

Oh look a Mother Jones article (http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/08/glenn-beck-george-washington-restoring-honor) pointing out the inaccuracies of Beck's speeches at his rally. This must certainly be biased as it contains the cspan video of the speech in question. and the official record according to the national archives.

another AP article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/01/julian-assange-rape-inves_n_701578.html)

another AP article about the weather (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/01/hurricane-earl-evacuation_n_701580.html)

another AP article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/31/texas-gay-divorce-denied-appeals-court_n_701393.html)

another AP article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/31/palestine-gunman-kills-4-_n_700823.html) on the killings in Jerusalem by Hamas certainly a lefty bias here right?

This is just the first few articles.
I found no bias. Unless reality has a bias.

maybe you're confusing the news section with the editorial /blog section? a section open to anyone. Conservatives often blog here too.

Unlike certain other websites they keep the news and commentary separate. They don't propagate opinion as news.

[Hobodeluxe]

Looks like Rupert Murdoch will have to open his wallet again. (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/politics/Democrat_Bell_awarded_2_million_in_lawsuit_1019393 73.html)

[Matt]

What does any of that have to do with Fox News or Murdoch?

[Hobodeluxe]

What does any of that have to do with Fox News or Murdoch?

Murdoch likes giving millions to Republican governors?

[TimBisley]

Has anyone seen Outfoxed? It was a pretty good doc, it should be online or on Netflix.

[hippie_hunter]

Murdoch likes giving millions to Republican governors?
So? It's his money. He's free to do whatever he wants. Just like how George Soros has given millions to Democratic candidates like Barack Obama.

[DACrowe]

True. However, it is incredibly disheartening to see the media (and NewsCorp is the media with Fox News, WSJ, New York Post, etc.) so flat out sold out to a political party. In principle the media should be the watchdog of government and political parties, not a partner, or worse a patron picking winners and losers. A media that is no more than propaganda for one side or the other is a tragedy.

But it is perfectly legal, you are right.

[StorminNorman]

They are sold to a political ideology. Like most of the media is sold on Progressivism.

[Heretic]

a couple of points. the "founding fathers" disagreed on a lot of issues. so using a blanket statement like "I support the founding father's positions" is a little ambiguous. which founding father's position on which issue?

also I do take a little offense when someone lays claim to the flag or the constitution,or God as fully supporting their position on an issue. To me that's like them saying "If you disagree with me you're Un-American or Godless or both"

Which founding fathers? I dont know...ask whoever was at the event. I'm not here to speak for them. My only statement was that there is nothing partisan about respecting the founding fathers. Since the founding fathers disagreed all the time, and it IS possible to respect all of them in their various opinions and contributions, then it would seem to be impossible to be partisan in respecting the founding fathers...yet the left wing is treating it as if it is a right wing issue.

Regarding religion...the right wing has all but hijacked the constitution and history books in claiming that America is a christian nation. I find it insulting because I actually do respect all of the founding fathers...in all their various different belief systems...and for the Christians to downplay or try to erase the non-christian aspects of our country's founding is just wrong.

[Matt Mortem]

Regarding religion...the right wing has all but hijacked the constitution and history books in claiming that America is a christian nation. I find it insulting because I actually do respect all of the founding fathers...in all their various different belief systems...and for the Christians to downplay or try to erase the non-christian aspects of our country's founding is just wrong.
:bow::bow:
This is probably the best post I've seen on the Hype. This encapsulates everything I've been saying to people in my area for years. Bravo to you sir!

[StorminNorman]

a couple of points. the "founding fathers" disagreed on a lot of issues. so using a blanket statement like "I support the founding father's positions" is a little ambiguous. which founding father's position on which issue?

Which is why I began my understanding of the Founding Fathers with Alexander Hamilton - the most "liberal" (in the modern sense) of the group. Even his expansive view of the federal government does not mesh with the current one. He recognized that the Constitution (though he may not have seen in as the ideal system) protected the sovereignty of the state.

also I do take a little offense when someone lays claim to the flag or the constitution,or God as fully supporting their position on an issue. To me that's like them saying "If you disagree with me you're Un-American or Godless or both"

Get use to it. I get a little offended when someone claims that I am racist because I advocate a return to the Constitution or States Rights.

[DACrowe]

They are sold to a political ideology. Like most of the media is sold on Progressivism.

Whatever.

There are liberally biased outlets like MSNBC, The Huffington Post, etc. But there are many that are nonpartisan or at least do not try to manipulate the news.

What Murdoch is doing is closer to Hearst and yellow journalism at the turn of the last century. He is far more out there than anyone else when he actually tries to manipulate the news by ENDORSING A PARTY AND GIVING THEM $1 MILLION. It is beyond bias. Any journalism school teaches that journalistic ethics would include not taking money or giving money to sources or public figures.

This is not just a slant in reporting. This is actively trying to get one party elected and trying to manipulate the next ten years (as governors will have a lot of power influencing the next census and therefore gerrymandering house rep. seats).

It is blinders to pretend there is some form of moral equivalency here. There is not.

[StorminNorman]

The aspect of the media that aims for objective journalism is small and far out of the mainstream.

The Networks - ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN and MSNBC are Progressive. The leading News Papers are Progressive.

[TimBisley]

Evidence please. You're own bias doesn't count.

[StorminNorman]

If you want I will go in depth sometime in the near future, but I would start by suggesting you look at the anchors and op-eds.

[8wid]

Has anyone seen Outfoxed? It was a pretty good doc, it should be online or on Netflix.

I wish it had been longer though. It's not like they couldn't have gotten more clips, all you have to do is watch the channel for about ten minutes and be overwhelmed with sensationalism.

[hippie_hunter]

Evidence please. You're own bias doesn't count.
The anchors that shaped CBS News, ABC News, and NBC News such as Walter Cronkite, Peter Jennings, Barbara Walters, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, etc. were liberals. You have the Hollywood elite, which is overwhelmingly liberal. And of course the blogosphere dominated by the Huffington Post and Daily Kos, are liberal.

Of course I personally find that Fox News being so overwhelmingly conservative and by far the one with the highest ratings counters the other news outlets. And conservative talk radio dominating political talk radio makes up for liberals dominating the blogosphere. And most people don't give a damn about the politics of Hollywood.

Overall, it balances itself out. We have conservative based media and liberal based media. We all have our options of what to choose to listen, watch, and read while tuning the others out.

For example, I hate Fox News. I find it too flashy, too sensationalist, and too biased. So I completely tune out Fox News and never watch it. Therefore, since I never watch it, it doesn't bother me. I don't go to the Huffington Post because I find it to be too biased, since I never go on the Huffington Post's website, I don't get bothered by it.

[Marx]

The anchors that shaped CBS News, ABC News, and NBC News such as Walter Cronkite, Peter Jennings, Barbara Walters, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, etc. were liberals. You have the Hollywood elite, which is overwhelmingly liberal. And of course the blogosphere dominated by the Huffington Post and Daily Kos, are liberal.

Of course I personally find that Fox News being so overwhelmingly conservative and by far the one with the highest ratings counters the other news outlets. And conservative talk radio dominating political talk radio makes up for liberals dominating the blogosphere. And most people don't give a damn about the politics of Hollywood.

Overall, it balances itself out. We have conservative based media and liberal based media. We all have our options of what to choose to listen, watch, and read while tuning the others out.

For example, I hate Fox News. I find it too flashy, too sensationalist, and too biased. So I completely tune out Fox News and never watch it. Therefore, since I never watch it, it doesn't bother me. I don't go to the Huffington Post because I find it to be too biased, since I never go on the Huffington Post's website, I don't get bothered by it.

I knew there was a reason why I :hrt: you. :oldrazz::cwink:

[Hobgoblin]

And the anchors are pompous. :o

[Alex The Great]

Has Fox News made a rebuttal on The Daily Show yet? most of you are viewers I think, well John revealed that the dude funding the mosque is one of the largest shareholders of FOX News. Which Fox has brilliantly forgotten to state. And in the moment of zen, they showed a clip of the guy in an interview with Fox and the interviewer said "So and So's name is the owner of one of the most respected companies around (Kingdom of so and so)"

I wonder if the guy has noticed Fox ripping on him :o

[chaseter]

They aren't going to refute that when they purposely left it out in the first place. The people that are hardcore Fox News watchers don't watch John Stewart.

[Alex The Great]

Funny how a fake news comedy show is more reliable than a real news network

[chaseter]

I would say they are both not reliable. If you watch Stewart as your only source for news, you are just as ill informed and fed biased dribble as someone who watches Fox News.

Stewart has also misrepresented stories many times before. Stewart I respect more because I think he says what he believes. Fox heads just say what makes them the most money but that doesn't make either more reliable than the other.

[Matt Mortem]

If I hear something on Stewart I always try and do some fact checking. It is a comedy show so I never take it at face value. It's the same with any of the cable news networks. Politifact.com is great for keeping things honest

[Alex The Great]

Yeah, but John Stewart appears to have more brains than half of Fox and Friends

I love the guy, and Colbert kind of balances the bias with his right wing stuff, though he takes jabs at fox at times. I watch CNN, and Global Calgary for my news.


And Sportscentre :awesome:

[chaseter]

I would say Krauthamer has Jon beaten by a mile.

Colbert does not balance anything...he constantly bashes the right. I loved it during Bush years but he is still doing the same thing and it has gotten old imo. Jon will occasionally attack the left but not Colbert.

[Alex The Great]

Let's agree to disagree :)

[Malice]

I watch Fox most of the time, but its just as bad as the other stations...

[Dr. Evil]

I mainly watch Fox for its sports programming, which is top notch with Fox NFL Sunday, NASCAR, Baseball, College Football, etc. I'll occasionally watch The Newshour on PBS for non-sports news.

I don't have cable or satellite, so I don't watch any of the cable news shows. Colbert and Stewart were awesome at getting into a "fight" with Conan O'Brien during the Writers Strike of 2007 which was pure genius.

[Hobodeluxe]

I would say they are both not reliable. If you watch Stewart as your only source for news, you are just as ill informed and fed biased dribble as someone who watches Fox News..


wrong again (http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions)

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb33/hobodeluxe/8cc80b74.gif

[chaseter]

Oh so that is the only place they get their news? Hobo knows everything! With Rush that high on the list...it must be true! Rush must really know everything. Quick everyone stop watching the news and lets only get our information from The Daily Show and Rush Limbaugh because that means we will score higher on teh chart!

[Marx]

Oh so that is the only place they get their news? Hobo knows everything! With Rush that high on the list...it must be true! Rush must really know everything. Quick everyone stop watching the news and lets only get our information from The Daily Show and Rush Limbaugh because that means we will score higher on teh chart!

As much as I :hrt: Jon Stewart...having those two as my ONLY news source scares me.

[chaseter]

News is over when the Daily Show comes on and Rush has a radio show...so a lot of people listen and watch to both.

[StorminNorman]

Jon Stewart is one of the best men in the news business (and he IS in the news business). He is an example of a good liberal - he is ideological, but not partisan.

I can work with people like Jon Stewart. He is everything Barack Obama pretending to be and everything that Barack Obama isn't in reality. Stewart has principals, Obama doesn't.

[8wid]

Jon Stewart is one of the best men in the news business (and he IS in the news business). He is an example of a good liberal - he is ideological, but not partisan.

I can work with people like Jon Stewart. He is everything Barack Obama pretending to be and everything that Barack Obama isn't in reality. Stewart has principals, Obama doesn't.

He's a comedian, an actor and an entertainer not a trained journalist or new commentator and is almost completely nonobjective.

[StorminNorman]

Training in journalism is extremely overrated these days. Jon Stewart holds both parties feet to the fire. We need more of his integrity.

[Carcharodon]

But should the ideal journalist be objective? Does that mean being dispassionate?

[8wid]

Training in journalism is extremely overrated these days. Jon Stewart holds both parties feet to the fire. We need more of his integrity.

Perhaps the training is, but an education, field experience, and first and encounters certainly do more than that. Otherwise it's just easy to sit around at a desk with a camera and talk about something these days.

But should the ideal journalist be objective? Does that mean being dispassionate?

Passionate about the points of view untold, but objective about the facts to present.

[hippie_hunter]

But should the ideal journalist be objective?
Ummmmm....yes.

[dnno1]

Which is why I began my understanding of the Founding Fathers with Alexander Hamilton - the most "liberal" (in the modern sense) of the group. Even his expansive view of the federal government does not mesh with the current one. He recognized that the Constitution (though he may not have seen in as the ideal system) protected the sovereignty of the state.

The thing that troubles me is that Hamilton favored monarchy. The rights of states and the protection of natural rights (life, liberty, and property) were Jefferson's ideas (by the way, Hamilton was just one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, but, of course, you knew that).

Get use to it. I get a little offended when someone claims that I am racist because I advocate a return to the Constitution or States Rights.

The implication is that they want to return to the Constitution before the ammendments (14th and above) were written. If that is the case, then yes, they would favor racism.

[chaseter]

But should the ideal journalist be objective? Does that mean being dispassionate?

Wait...wut:huh::dry:

[Marx]

But should the ideal journalist be objective? Does that mean being dispassionate?

Yes they should.

[Hobgoblin]

Absolutely.

[Chain]

The political ad Fox is suing over to make sure you don't see it. (http://www.stltoday.com/video_147d6b1c-bf55-11df-a1c5-0017a4a78c22.html)

[redhawk23]

The political ad Fox is suing over to make sure you don't see it. (http://www.stltoday.com/video_147d6b1c-bf55-11df-a1c5-0017a4a78c22.html)

copyright infringement I'll go with, invasion of privacy charge doesn't make much sense though.

[Carcharodon]

Ummmmm....yes.

Wait...wut:huh::dry:

Yes they should.

Absolutely.Damn...you guys completely ignored the second question. The first one was just a bit rhetorical and meant to set up the second.

However, since you guys would rather comment on the least interesting of the two questions, let's discuss that.

Why should the ideal journalist be objective? Is it even possible?

[The Question]

Why should the ideal journalist be objective? Is it even possible?

The ideal journalist shouldn't be completely objective, nor is it possible. But what they should care most about is the truth, above anything else. Fox News does not do this, though. While they never outright lie, they have no loyalty to the truth, only their narrative.

Perhaps the training is, but an education, field experience, and first and encounters certainly do more than that. Otherwise it's just easy to sit around at a desk with a camera and talk about something these days.

But think about it. All of these journalists with years of schooling on the subject, and a stand up comedian who doesn't even want to be perceived and a journalist has a thousand times the journalistic integrity they do. I'm not knocking the value of education in the field of journalism, I'm just pointing out how incredibly pathetic that is.

[8wid]

The ideal journalist shouldn't be completely objective, nor is it possible. But what they should care most about is the truth, above anything else. Fox News does not do this, though. While they never outright lie, they have no loyalty to the truth, only their narrative.



But think about it. All of these journalists with years of schooling on the subject, and a stand up comedian who doesn't even want to be perceived and a journalist has a thousand times the journalistic integrity they do. I'm not knocking the value of education in the field of journalism, I'm just pointing out how incredibly pathetic that is.

I must say it has indeed become pathetic because most corporate funded journalism at least since the beginning of the 1990s, there has been a deliberate effort to entertain and promote sensationalism merely as a form of profit, and to do a mediocre job on the news simply so that no one notices it and makes too much of a fuss.

Also its the American audience refusing to also be objective and allow this mediocrity for a quicker source of news and time spent. I always hear viewers of Fox News sitting around and watching it who know that it can be deliberately biased making the excuse that "they all do that!" Well even so Fox News zombies its your job to be critical and objective to for the sake of your civic virtues and community not to be forced into one point of view.

[Carcharodon]

The ideal journalist shouldn't be completely objective...How come?

[The Question]

How come?

Hunter S. Thompson put it better than I could:

"Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism — which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful."

I don't think it should be taken quite as far as he implies here, but Journalists should allow feeling to influence their work, as long as it is balanced with logic and a devotion to the truth.

[DACrowe]

Sometimes opinionated journalism or sharp commentary can do great things. I strongly believe Edward R. Murrow may be the greatest journalist in US history, but he was certainly biased.

However, as a rule, objective journalism is preferred and a difficult goal to be strived for in one's work. Simply put you need that national discourse and that common ground where everyone can see something for what it is.

The alternative, I'm afraid we're living in right now. Most major television and online media (print is still fairly good but is dying as no one really uses it anymore) is politically divided. Fox News. MSNBC. Huffington Post. Drudge Report. Rush Limbaugh. Ed Schultz.

etc. etc.

What this leads to is a culture where everyone will kill the messenger if the messenger says something they don't like, "Oh he's just a "journ-O-list" or he's just a neoCON. This leads to everyone only hearing what they want to hear and a more divided public.

Even when something factually happens, a person's preferred propaganda will either espouse it if it literally happened to the other side or strongly deny it to the point where their viewers or readers will deny cold hard facts. Take Mike Castle recently. This guy is a true Republican, but he wasn't part of the Tea Party narrative where all the money is for conservative talk radio and Fox News. So they smeared him. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh said the man voted for Obama's Stimulus Package, voted for Health Care Reform, and tried to impeach President Bush in 2006.

Now all of these are pure lies. But so many conservatives take them as gospel and lo and behold--Mike Castle loses his election. This is similar to how most Americans think President Obama is unAmerican and has taken more vacation days at this point in his first term than President Bush. Both of these are lies. Both of these are believed due to partisan media.

Now due to it taking such an extreme slant in the 21st century politicians who are running for serious jobs can avoid scrutiny by canceling debates (like Jan Brewer of Arizona) and only talking to biased, friendly media that will give them easy softball questions and not grill them on their competence, records, or general intellectual curiosity, such as Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Newt Gingrich, and Sarah Palin on Fox News.

In the next election cycle expect more Democrats only talking to MSNBC and Huffington Post.

This ruins our national discord as nobody sees the same thing, but only what they want to see. Thus increasing tensions and dividing this country further, I am sad to say.

[DACrowe]

FOX NEWS ENTERS NEW ERA OF ETHICAL POLITICAL COVERAGE WITH "FOX CANDIDATES," CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED TO APPEAR ONLY ON FOX RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42745.html

Fascinating read. One news network having 2/3 of the major contenders for POTUS for one party on payroll and the complications that ensue has really changed the dynamic of national media. If one of the four would become president, it would kind of make Fox news like a national state media, wouldn't it?

Very interesting, if very disturbing.

[Doomed_hero]

I am dissapointed with the media as a whole and belive the 24 hour news cycle may be the wrost thing for this country. With not enough news to cover in politics(or not any they want to cover) they focus on one or two stories that pundits will argue over 24 hours a day and harp on it for over a week. So we end up getting a non story blown up to the point that it covers any of the actual imporant events that may effect the country. The result is a country that is more informed about a story they will forget in a week rather then the facts of major legislation that just past. Worse is that in tha non story that story the "facts" people learn are really only opioins that then spread like rumors.

I would rather hear the facts of a bill then how a Half term govenor may run for president in 2012 and hear whats happening on the hill rather then a persons opioin of what happened there.

[Marx]

I think the 24 hour news cycle has opened us up for a lot more bad reporting. Instead of fact checking a story before it airs, 24 hour news outlets immediately run it. It's all about scooping the other channel and getting ratings.

[Dr. Evil]

I only watch Fox for sports anyways. It's the only thing they are good at....that and FX.

[DACrowe]

Ironically, more media I think has worsened the national conversation. We have more voices, but it makes it easier for fringe or biased, manipulative voices/sources to hijack the conversation to push an agenda or narrative.

The onslaught of the Internet media has killed or is killing professional journalism and the accountability in print it enshrined (whatever your political leanings newspapers like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post were excellent sources for news and hard facts). Whatever bias, these sources are dying and are being traded in for unreliable and incredibly skewed sources on the blogosphere or online media accumulation centers liking Huffington Post and The Drudge Report.

And cable news takes the worst aspects of politics--the horse race--and turns it into a national 24-hour sport. It is like ESPN for political junkies. And everyone has their team network, whether it be Fox or MSNBC. Thereby only listening to people they agree with and shutting out information that may hurt what they want to think.

Albeit, Fox takes it to a whole different level with the level of dishonesty and news manipulation. They have left the realm of bias and entered propaganda, imho.

And the above article pointing out how four of the major contenders for president on the GOP ticket (two of them, frontrunners!) are on Fox's payroll.

National discourse is dying for the rest of us. Oh well.

[Kelly]

FOX NEWS ENTERS NEW ERA OF ETHICAL POLITICAL COVERAGE WITH "FOX CANDIDATES," CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED TO APPEAR ONLY ON FOX RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42745.html

Fascinating read. One news network having 2/3 of the major contenders for POTUS for one party on payroll and the complications that ensue has really changed the dynamic of national media. If one of the four would become president, it would kind of make Fox news like a national state media, wouldn't it?

Very interesting, if very disturbing.

I'm not saying that all 4 WON'T run for President, they probably will.....but none of them have said yes, YET. So I might have waited on writing the article until that happened.

[Dr. Evil]

FOX NEWS ENTERS NEW ERA OF ETHICAL POLITICAL COVERAGE WITH "FOX CANDIDATES," CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED TO APPEAR ONLY ON FOX RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42745.html

Fascinating read. One news network having 2/3 of the major contenders for POTUS for one party on payroll and the complications that ensue has really changed the dynamic of national media. If one of the four would become president, it would kind of make Fox news like a national state media, wouldn't it?

Very interesting, if very disturbing.

So, does anyone know what their foreign policy issues would be? Does Palin even have one? Does she know what foreign policy is?

[Kelly]

The only one up there that has run for President is Huckabee, and on his Presidential Candidacy website it had his Foreign Policy points as well as his Domestic Policy points.

Gingrich could out debate any of the other 3, and probably Obama as well on most issues. People may not agree with his ideology, but he is a damn smart guy, and could probably wipe the floor with most candidates out there today Republican or Democrat. If he runs, it will be people voting against his ideology, not his ability, intelligence or experience.

[DACrowe]

I'm not saying that all 4 WON'T run for President, they probably will.....but none of them have said yes, YET. So I might have waited on writing the article until that happened.

Even so we know at least two of them are running (Huckabee and Gingrich) while Palin is heavily suspected of running. And they're all on payroll so that they don't have to do interviews anywhere else (due to contractual agreements). While at Fox they get nothing but softball questions and a free pass to espouse their rhetoric without scrutiny to their base (Fox viewers) without any sort of accountability.

It is rather sad.

[bell110]

FOX NEWS ENTERS NEW ERA OF ETHICAL POLITICAL COVERAGE WITH "FOX CANDIDATES," CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED TO APPEAR ONLY ON FOX RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42745.html

Fascinating read. One news network having 2/3 of the major contenders for POTUS for one party on payroll and the complications that ensue has really changed the dynamic of national media. If one of the four would become president, it would kind of make Fox news like a national state media, wouldn't it?

Very interesting, if very disturbing.

Yes, it would.

Ironically, more media I think has worsened the national conversation. We have more voices, but it makes it easier for fringe or biased, manipulative voices/sources to hijack the conversation to push an agenda or narrative.

The onslaught of the Internet media has killed or is killing professional journalism and the accountability in print it enshrined (whatever your political leanings newspapers like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post were excellent sources for news and hard facts). Whatever bias, these sources are dying and are being traded in for unreliable and incredibly skewed sources on the blogosphere or online media accumulation centers liking Huffington Post and The Drudge Report.

And cable news takes the worst aspects of politics--the horse race--and turns it into a national 24-hour sport. It is like ESPN for political junkies. And everyone has their team network, whether it be Fox or MSNBC. Thereby only listening to people they agree with and shutting out information that may hurt what they want to think.

Albeit, Fox takes it to a whole different level with the level of dishonesty and news manipulation. They have left the realm of bias and entered propaganda, imho.

And the above article pointing out how four of the major contenders for president on the GOP ticket (two of them, frontrunners!) are on Fox's payroll.

National discourse is dying for the rest of us. Oh well.

Well, have you ever heard of yellow journalism? Skewing facts to sell is nothing new. We are lucky today because of the internet. If our journalist say something that doesn't seem right, we can easily check out if they are lying. Ironically, noone bothers to learn for themselves. We have all the tools at our disposal, yet people want information spoon fed to them.

So, does anyone know what their foreign policy issues would be? Does Palin even have one? Does she know what foreign policy is?

Well, Palin can see Russia from her house.

Even so we know at least two of them are running (Huckabee and Gingrich) while Palin is heavily suspected of running. And they're all on payroll so that they don't have to do interviews anywhere else (due to contractual agreements). While at Fox they get nothing but softball questions and a free pass to espouse their rhetoric without scrutiny to their base (Fox viewers) without any sort of accountability.

It is rather sad.

I don't think Palin would run. If in the next two years she isn't getting air time, she may throw her hat into the ring to get her extremely long 15 minutes back. But I don't think she's a serious contender. She's in it for the money. Actually, I'd count all of them out. I don't know of anybody in recent history, that wasn't VP, that has been "contenders" that was or has become president more than two years until election. It's going to be someone out of nowhere, 6 months before the election.

[Marx]

I think Palin is delusional enough to run again.

[Kelly]

Even so we know at least two of them are running (Huckabee and Gingrich) while Palin is heavily suspected of running. And they're all on payroll so that they don't have to do interviews anywhere else (due to contractual agreements). While at Fox they get nothing but softball questions and a free pass to espouse their rhetoric without scrutiny to their base (Fox viewers) without any sort of accountability.

It is rather sad.

I don't know that, neither have said for sure.....hell I think all 4 will run, I just think its a little silly to put out an article like that this early in the game.

LMAO, Its obvious you don't watch Chris Wallace on Sunday Mornings....

[Dr. Evil]

I don't know that, neither have said for sure.....hell I think all 4 will run, I just think its a little silly to put out an article like that this early in the game.

LMAO, Its obvious you don't watch Mike Wallace on Sunday Mornings....

It's Chris Wallace. Mike works for 60 Minutes and is 103 years old.

[Kelly]

ooops, I always get him mixed up with his dad....

[Marx]

Closed due to size. Please continue the discussion in the NEW thread!

Discussion: FOX News II
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=346918