Discussion: FOX News II

[chaseter]

It's in Rolling Stone and another magazine.



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.

Dan knew what he was doing. To feel sad for him is foolish. Fox is a propaganda machine. No one is saying otherwise. They aren't the wolf in sheep's clothing. Educated people know what Fox is. Nobody cares about what a redneck in the Ozarks thinks about Glenn Beck. But for seasoned and respected journalists to be biased in their reporting like Katie Couric and Dan Rather is just disgusting. I really don't know what is worse; the turd baking in the sun (Fox) or the turd with cologne on it (ABC,CBS,NBC).

Fox does it to make money. They found a niche and they play to it and rake in the cash. What did Dan Rather do it for? Did he do it for money or to get Bush to not be elected? It's one of those two. They knew what they were doing. Are either of those a legitimate excuse? Nope. It was also blatantly obvious that the, and I hate to say it, mainstream media, were for Obama/Biden in 2008. Jesus Christ it was so obvious.

 

[Kelly]

Yeah, it was pretty telling the study done on the bias in favor of Obama on the 3 main networks in 2008. It will be interesting to see how it goes in 2012. I honestly don't think they will be AS favorable toward him as they were in 2008. It will probably be more balanced, but I bet they will fry his opponent.

 

[8wid]

Dan knew what he was doing. To feel sad for him is foolish. Fox is a propaganda machine. No one is saying otherwise. They aren't the wolf in sheep's clothing. Educated people know what Fox is. Nobody cares about what a redneck in the Ozarks thinks about Glenn Beck. But for seasoned and respected journalists to be biased in their reporting like Katie Couric and Dan Rather is just disgusting. I really don't know what is worse; the turd baking in the sun (Fox) or the turd with cologne on it (ABC,CBS,NBC).

Fox does it to make money. They found a niche and they play to it and rake in the cash. What did Dan Rather do it for? Did he do it for money or to get Bush to not be elected? It's one of those two. They knew what they were doing. Are either of those a legitimate excuse? Nope. It was also blatantly obvious that the, and I hate to say it, mainstream media, were for Obama/Biden in 2008. Jesus Christ it was so obvious.

I suggest to all, RT

 

[StorminNorman]

I haven't watched much, but Russia Today seems pretty awesome.

They cover a lot of Financial Services hearings. On St. Patricks day they had a smoking hot Irish anchor cover a Ron Paul DMP hearing. All around it was a great day to be a red blooded libertarian male in Washington.

 

[Handsome Rob]

Yeah, it was pretty telling the study done on the bias in favor of Obama on the 3 main networks in 2008. It will be interesting to see how it goes in 2012. I honestly don't think they will be AS favorable toward him as they were in 2008. It will probably be more balanced, but I bet they will fry his opponent.

I agree, Kel. I think some of "the shine" has worn off of Obama, though NBC news still seems to favor him quite a bit.

On another note (and not directed at you, Kel):

People tend to not see bias where they agree with the position of the news outlet. Hence, this is why you have people on here saying FoxNews is nothing but lies and then turn around and talk about watching MSNBC or posting articles from Mother Jones. I imagine liberals will tend to see MSNBC as more objective or less liberally biased than conservatives will, and conservatives will see FoxNews are more objective or less conservatively biased than liberals will.

While I believe the best media sources are those that strive to be the most objective, Freedom of the Press is not dependent upon that Press striving to be objective. The 1st Amendment clearly states that, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the press." FoxNews has just as much of a right to exist as any other press outlet--regardless of spin, regardless of bias.

 

[Kelly]

Of course they will, that is a human tendency....and I certainly can't fault people for it. I probably agree with Stossel and O'Reilly far more than most around here, and that is just a difference that people will have in their opinion.

That is why I always find it interesting to read these types of studies on media bias....sometimes they can be very eye opening for me....I hope they are eye opening for others, but in many cases I'm sure that people will say....BS to the mainstream media bias in favor Obama, simply because they agree with Obama's policies etc....that just happens.

 

[redhawk23]

I've actually never seen anyone defend MSNBC on here, and their links arent posted any more often than Fox's.

 

[redhawk23]

Fox news has just as much right to exist, but that doesnt mean we cant call them, and any other network out on their bullcrap. And yes they can have whatever spin they want, but any network that resorts to their tactics loses any claim to journalistic integrity.

 

[Kelly]

I've actually never seen anyone defend MSNBC on here, and their links arent posted any more often than Fox's.

That would mean people watch MSNBC...

 

[redhawk23]

I never said that nobody watches it, I simply said that no one defends it. Ripping on Fox is not the same as singing the praises of the other networks. Often when theres griping about Beck or any others its because a specific clip or story is brought up. No one ever said any of the other anchors and hosts were any better.

 

[Kelly]

That was sarcasm on my part...

 

[DACrowe]

I never said that nobody watches it, I simply said that no one defends it. Ripping on Fox is not the same as singing the praises of the other networks. Often when theres griping about Beck or any others its because a specific clip or story is brought up. No one ever said any of the other anchors and hosts were any better.

On the main three....even on MSNBC and CNN, I'd say there is no host as bad as Beck. I know Schultz is a DNC cheerleader who throws around charged phrases like "****," but even he does not approach the level of self-serving, dishonest paranoid insanity that is Glenn Beck.

And while I do think there are many bad news sources, Fox is a propaganda machine. Albeit, their appearance has caused escalation with MSNBC approaching that sensationalistic, partisan style. However, their inability to go the full mile (as seen with their firing of Olbermann and stricter ethics rules) shows that Fox is still in a level all its own. I've heard it supposed that while Fox will always be conservative, that the Murdoch family will dial back some of the dishonest aspects of it once Ailes retires and/or dies. But that level of insulation is why Fox is so popular, so it remains to be seen.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Fox Mistakes Tina Fey for Sarah Palin

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theti...et/fox-news-mistakes-tina-fey-for-sarah-palin

 

[Handsome Rob]

Fox Mistakes Tina Fey for Sarah Palin

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theti...et/fox-news-mistakes-tina-fey-for-sarah-palin

Awesome. Her impression was uncanny.

 

[Marx]

The Glenn Beck Show is officially no more...

 

[Trainwreck2100]

The Glenn Beck Show is officially no more...

meh

 

[Kelly]

The Glenn Beck Show is officially no more...

Hmmmm....may not be a good thing....he now simply has more time to do other crap, in other places, and more time to do it. Whatever it is he does...

 

[StorminNorman]

Glenn Beck is a genius for what he is doing with his online streaming.

It may not really catch fire for a few years, but online streaming is the future and Beck is going to be ahead of the pack. Further I think he only needs like 50,000 subscribers to make more money than he was at Fox.

 

[Prison Mike]

Foxnews website hacked, false tweet says Obama shot

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Twitter account of FoxNews.com's political news feed, FoxNewspolitics, was hacked on Monday and sent several false tweets saying that President Barack Obama had been shot dead.
"Those reports are incorrect, of course, and the president is spending the July 4 holiday with his family," Foxnews.com said on Monday in statement saying its site had been hacked.
There was no immediate reaction from the White House and the Secret Service declined to comment.
Obama is celebrating the July 4 Independence holiday with his family at the White House and a Reuters photographer in the president's news pool said Obama had just left the White House on Monday morning to play golf.
The first tweet appeared around 2 a.m. and said: "@BarackObama has just passed. The President is dead. A sad 4th of July, indeed. President Barack Obama is dead."
The next one, "@BarackObama has just passed. Nearly 45 minutes ago, he was shot twice in the lower pelvic area and in the neck; shooter unknown. Bled out"
In all some six false tweets were issued, saying Obama had been shot at a restaurant in Iowa while campaigning.
Obama has not been in Iowa this weekend and returned on Sunday to the White House from a brief trip to Camp David.
"Hackers sent out several malicious and false tweets that President Obama had been assassinated," the FoxNews statement said. "The hacking is being investigated, and FoxNews.com regrets any distress the false tweets may have created."
It was the latest incident in a series of high-profile global wave of hackings over the past few weeks.
The security breach raises questions about the integrity of news feeds on Twitter. There was no immediate reply from Twitter to a Reuters email seeking comment.
(Reporting by Sandra Maler, additional reporting by Laura MacInnis and Tom Doggett, Editing by Jackie Frank)

http://news.yahoo.com/foxnews-website-hacked-false-tweet-says-obama-shot-131341952.html

 

[8wid]

^It's not Fox News wouldn't have reported that themselves.

 

[Marx]

Good grief...

 

[Kelly]

Fox News for the last two days has been showing the and talking about the Kayley Anthony trial....I know this because I have watched, and I am watching as a type the trial....they have not reported anything about Obama...

 

[Marx]

Well, it's FOX News' twitter feed that was hacked...not the website.

UPDATE: FOX NEWS' TWITTER FEED HACKED; FALSELY REPORTS THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS BEEN ASSASSINATED
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...witter-feed-says-obama-dead-in-apparent-hack/

 

[redfirebird2008]

Well, it's FOX News' twitter feed that was hacked...not the website.

UPDATE: FOX NEWS' TWITTER FEED HACKED; FALSELY REPORTS THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS BEEN ASSASSINATED
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...witter-feed-says-obama-dead-in-apparent-hack/

Serious question. If Weiner lied about his Twitter being hacked and no one believed him when he lied about it, why should we believe Fox? They should provide proof that someone in their office didn't post it. And if someone in their office did post it, then that person should be fired.

 

[Marx]

With something as serious as this, I hope a full investigation is conducted.