Discussion: FOX News

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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 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.
 
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.
 
I only watch Fox for sports anyways. It's the only thing they are good at....that and FX.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
I think Palin is delusional enough to run again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,535
Messages
21,755,263
Members
45,591
Latest member
MartyMcFly1985
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"