Discussion: FOX News II

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

They never explained what was wrong with gay prom queens.

The "assault on American values" argument.

Oh, and isn't the conservative God Ronald Reagan straight out of Hollywood?

[YT]rHQMTS-iYDk[/YT]

 

[Ultra Lantern]

Bunch of nut jobs at Fox News.

That's so true.

 

[Marvolo]

Why am I not suprised with this? What kind of 3 year old would even pick up on this ****? That is, if this crap is even there to begin with. It's like Fox News and the rest of these right wing nuts are on some kind of witch hunt. Not to mention the superiority complex that they all have.

 

[bored]

OK, I'M SO ****ING SICK OF PEOPLE BASHING FOX NEWS JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE A CONSERVATIVE BIAS! THEIR ARE ALSO NEWS SOURCES THAT BIASED LIBERALLY. THEY ARE JUST MORE SUBTLE. [/end rant]
Note that I disagree with what the guest is saying.

There is a big difference between what the mainstream media outlets that are branded as "liberal" do (even MSNBC, which is the only one I actually look at and call liberal), and what FOX does. FOX News makes its conservative agenda the mission for its entire programming. Other mainstream outlets just have a talking head or two, or don't frame their stories the way a conservative would.

 

[Scourge2099]

How is Fox News not treated in the same light as Comedy Central now ? First they call Obama a commie socialist nazi fascist gangster muslim and now they are waging war on Sesame Street.

 

[Hobgoblin]

That's odd. If Sesame Street is so evil, why has it been a beloved children's program for over 30 years?

 

[Scourge2099]

Faux News hates America that's why.

 

[Kurosawa]

Deleted.

 

[Marvolo]

That's odd. If Sesame Street is so evil, why has it been a beloved children's program for over 30 years?

Don't you know? The government has been funding sesame street in secret for years to keep it on the air so that they may fill our children's heads with propaganda. They are planing to put together the perfect liberal army so that they may crush the conservative party and their right wing agenda.t:

 

[chaseter]

There is a big difference between what the mainstream media outlets that are branded as "liberal" do (even MSNBC, which is the only one I actually look at and call liberal), and what FOX does. FOX News makes its conservative agenda the mission for its entire programming. Other mainstream outlets just have a talking head or two, or don't frame their stories the way a conservative would.

Didn't Dan Rather read a false story about Bush during the 2004 election? Why would he do that? He did it because it was huge news had it been true. It would have given his program tons of coverage and viewership. It's exactly what Fox does.

All news networks have a bias. Fox's and MSNBC's are glaringly bright though and the only difference between Fox and MSNBC is that Fox has more of it. The only reason MSNBC isn't doing more of it is because they don't have the viewership that Fox does. You bet MSNBC would be doing more of what they are doing instead of running Jail re-runs every single night. Fox is doing it because they have the viewership. They are making a killing by running conservative values in all their shows.

I rarely watch Fox or MSNBC and I definitely do not watch Sean Hannity because he is a complete idiot so it doesn't surprise me that something this stupid would come from the Sean Hannity Show.

 

[Kelly]

How is Fox News not treated in the same light as Comedy Central now ? First they call Obama a commie socialist nazi fascist gangster muslim and now they are waging war on Sesame Street.

Wow, Fox has called Obama a commie, socialist, nazi, facist,gangster,muslim? I missed that one...

So, when Lettermen, or The View, or another show has O'Reilly on, they believe all of those things about Obama because O'Reilly is from Fox, even though is is simply a guest on their show?

 

[Asteroid-Man]

O'Reilly has time and time again grilled Stewart and Obama for having guests with radical beliefs come and perform (usually on topics that have nothing to do with what they are radical about), saying that the guests start to represent the public outlook on the hosts - yet when O'Reilly is pinned by association to radicals, he goes "No, this is different - I brought them on to just speak their opinions and I made it clear I don't agree to their extent". He's a damn good petticoater and he's very cunning. Dirty rat.

 

[Marx]

This is hilarious... and kinda sad.

...I have no words.

They never explained what was wrong with gay prom queens.

Bigotry and intolerance.

OK, I'M SO ****ING SICK OF PEOPLE BASHING FOX NEWS JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE A CONSERVATIVE BIAS! THEIR ARE ALSO NEWS SOURCES THAT BIASED LIBERALLY. THEY ARE JUST MORE SUBTLE. [/end rant]
Note that I disagree with what the guest is saying.

The bias is not the problem with FOX News. The tagline is. If they would drop the 'fair and balanced' crap...they might be taken a little more seriously. I couldn't care less how far right they are but I have a serious issue with all of this 'fair and balanced'/'we are america's newsroom' crap.
'Fair and balanced' would not only give a platform to GOP presidential candidates. 'Fair and balanced' would not purposely give a right-leaning spin' to almost every news story.

FOX News is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the GOP. And please, do not respond to me with 'MSNBC is just as bad' because they're not.

 

[Kelly]

No, I think their bias is a problem as well....there are some on Fox that go way over the top.
But, if I were someone in the business of making money on cable tv....well, they do very well...so I don't see that changing anytime soon.

 

[Marx]

MSNBC is undeniably left-leaning but they do not hide behind a 'fair and balanced' tagline suggesting that they are somehow mainstream or without bias.

FOX does go overboard with the bias. I can definitely agree with that.

 

[Kelly]

IMO, if any cable news stations have "news" in their taglines they are not being truthful...

 

[bored]

Didn't Dan Rather read a false story about Bush during the 2004 election? Why would he do that? He did it because it was huge news had it been true. It would have given his program tons of coverage and viewership. It's exactly what Fox does.

Some shoddy research seven years ago really doesn't have any bearing on why FOX is crap (though I was disappointed in Rather when that happened).

 

[DACrowe]

BTW Glenn Beck leaves the air on June 30 and his Friday show got cut off for a Weiner-bashing ( ) Van Sustron special on Friday. I wonder if it being revealed Beck said that the day he was hired that Roger Ailes told him their network's goal was to "impede the Obama Administration" at every turn and be an anti-Obama political campaign 24/7 had something to do with that twist of the knife?

 

[Superman]

BTW Glenn Beck leaves the air on June 30 and his Friday show got cut off for a Weiner-bashing ( ) Van Sustron special on Friday. I wonder if it being revealed Beck said that the day he was hired that Roger Ailes told him their network's goal was to "impede the Obama Administration" at every turn and be an anti-Obama political campaign 24/7 had something to do with that twist of the knife?

Did Beck say that about Ailes on the show?

 

[StorminNorman]

Glenn Beck is a genius with his online GBTV. With the rates he is charging, I think he only has to get 50,000 new subscribers to make more than he was making with Fox. Plus internet TV is the future.

 

[chaseter]

Some shoddy research seven years ago really doesn't have any bearing on why FOX is crap (though I was disappointed in Rather when that happened).

Blaming it on shoddy research? You could say Fox does that. It was during the election cycle and it was a smear piece. Why would they do a possibly huge story that would smear Bush during an election year if they didn't know if it was true? Rather and his crew did it on purpose and they apologized after they got caught.

My point is that there is bias in the media, it just isn't as blatant as with Fox or MSNBC. I wasn't disappointed in Rather...it just showed his true colors. Fox is crap but then again most news outlets are all crap today. I get more out of the yahoo home page than I do out of CNN.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Glenn Beck is a genius with his online GBTV. With the rates he is charging, I think he only has to get 50,000 new subscribers to make more than he was making with Fox. Plus internet TV is the future.

He's starting to turn into a 21'st Century Dr. Gene Scott.

 

[chaseter]

Spoiler: I will not be signing up for GBTV.

 

[DACrowe]

Did Beck say that about Ailes on the show?

It's in Rolling Stone and another magazine.

Blaming it on shoddy research? You could say Fox does that. It was during the election cycle and it was a smear piece. Why would they do a possibly huge story that would smear Bush during an election year if they didn't know if it was true? Rather and his crew did it on purpose and they apologized after they got caught.

My point is that there is bias in the media, it just isn't as blatant as with Fox or MSNBC. I wasn't disappointed in Rather...it just showed his true colors. Fox is crap but then again most news outlets are all crap today. I get more out of the yahoo home page than I do out of CNN.

Pointing out that CBS did a smear piece that ended with a long-time anchor's reputation forever tarnished and being fired is not the same as Fox News. Fox News, honest to God, is just not biased. It is a propaganda machine. It has a "brain room" where Reagan and Bush alum hatch talking points which go up to the eighth floor where Ailes's VPs pick and choose and send out memos of what to talk about. It is run by a guy who got his start in politics by helping Nixon avoid talking to the press by putting plants in the audience. The guy who created Fox News so the GOP could talk to the base without having to deal with "socialist" journalists asking them tough questions.

At the end of the day Fox is propaganda (with a few exceptions like Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace) that masquerades itself as news. Do we want to talk about election year bias? Like when the Fox Morning Show spent two hours calling Obama by the name Hussein and Doocey (inaccurately) said Obama grew up a Muslim and started the "he went to school at a mosque" thing. It was laid on so thick, that Wallace came on and told Doocey "that's enough Obama bashing for one day."

What about news anchors? In 2000, John Ellis was head of Fox's news team analysis on election night. Ellis also happened to be a personal cousin of George W. Bush. That right there is usually enough to be considered a conflict of interest, especially when he wrote himself in the Boston Globe that he has more loyalty to his cousin this election than his audience or voters in general. But Fox used him anyway. When it was after 2 a.m. and still too close to call, Ellis made a "leadership decision" and, after talking to his cousin personally on phone several hours earlier, at 2:16 declared Bush won the election. This made all other networks and newspapers run with that so when people woke up, they would see Bush won. I'm not saying Gore would have won the recount argument if he hadn't done that, but if that isn't bias from the "news side" and an attempt to manipulate an election, I don't know what is.

 

[Kelly]

I've seen the guy talking about Sesame Street, and other shows with a liberal bias...he has actual video and audio footage of the writers, producers, etc...talking about specifically wanting to push a liberal agenda....he had proof for all shows he mentioned. NOW, did we the audience every figure it out....on some shows yes, on others, had no clue....but that doesn't mean that the writers and producers did not have the motive, we just didn't see it manifested in the shows that we watched. I mean, I was a little young to be able to see the liberal bias in the Mary Tyler Moore Show, but when you hear the producers and writers talk about what they did, then yeah I can see it.

Also, just because I might have actually seen a bias, didn't mean I enjoyed the show less, but again doesn't mean that the motive was not there.

I mean if they guy wrote a book talking about how "he saw the liberal bias" in all of those shows....then I'd say...meh your opinion, move on. But that is not what he based his book on, he interviewed the writers, producers and actors from these shows for his book and went from there.

I will agree that Fox certainly RAN with the story, putting it on every damn show of theres....I won't buy the book mainly because I'm already tired of hearing about it....I feel like I know what is on every freaking page. I think the only pundit show that didn't talk about it was Greta.