I'm done with FOX.

[spincycle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcJn5XlbSFk

Not sure how many folks have seen this on the news.

On one hand, I'm pissed. I have had family who has served in Afghanistan and to mock their contributions and the lives of the 116 soldiers who have died is in extremely poor taste.

On the other hand, it's FOX. I never take what they say seriously. But I'm also tired of giving them my money (in terms of watching their programming) when they turn around and put bullshit like this out.

So, I'm done with them. I won't be watching any of their programming or going to see any of their movies.

Am I taking it too far or too seriously? Maybe. But when there are plenty of other interesting things to watch on TV, why would I support a bunch of assholes?

What do you guys think?


spin

[kaisersozei]

I've never this "Red Eye" segment, but they look like a bunch of stoned out jokers trying to get a rise out of people, not too credible if you ask me :confused:

Anyway, I was too distracted by the "related" Megan Fox Sexy Video Compilation - FHM 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNkQ9qseKMs) link :dance:

[Gophernut]

Certainly looks to me to be in very poor taste.
Anyway, I was too distracted by the "related" Megan Fox Sexy Video Compilation - FHM 2008 link
:tpd:

[SmoknTaz]

Certainly looks to me to be in very poor taste.

:tpd: I see this as a total publicity stunt! Some people have no class!

[lightning9191]

That's not cool.

[icehog3]

4 freakin' a$$holes. :2

[Footbag]

Those people should not be allowed on TV. Americans owe all allied soldiers thanks, no matter what country they come from. We were attacked and Canada as well as a number of other allies chose to help us. Pure Ignorance.

[icehog3]

Those people should not be allowed on TV. Americans owe all allied soldiers thanks, no matter what country they come from. We were attacked and Canada as well as a number of other allies chose to help us. Pure Ignorance.

+1 :tu

[elderboy02]

Those people should not be allowed on TV. Americans owe all allied soldiers thanks, no matter what country they come from. We were attacked and Canada as well as a number of other allies chose to help us. Pure Ignorance.

:tpd: Freaking idiots

[TXRebel]

Red Eye is not news, it is like watching SNL News or Comedy Central, but not as humorous. :2

[ActionAndy]

Those people should not be allowed on TV. Americans owe all allied soldiers thanks, no matter what country they come from. We were attacked and Canada as well as a number of other allies chose to help us. Pure Ignorance.

Is censorship an american value?

[spincycle]

I'm not saying censor them, hell, keep these guys on the air. Personally, I'm done. The relationship between FOX and I is over. I'm breaking up with them.

[BC-Axeman]

That was nothing compared to what the Jon Stewart show has done.

[ChicagoWhiteSox]

That was nothing compared to what the Jon Stewart show has done.

How dare you bash Jon Stewart!!!!!!:D:D

[BamBam]

you're either part of the problem or part of the solution.....nuff said

[WildBlueSooner]

In my opinion the US media in general is pathetic. You can watch any of the major networks and laugh at the absurdness of what they are saying. Honestly I just stick to the BBC most of the time (although they certainly arent perfect). As for this particular clip pretty ridiculous to belittle the contributions and sacrifices of the Canadian military. Censorship is not the answer, not watching is! I cant believe I just stuck up for Canadians ;)

[Footbag]

Is censorship an american value?

I don't think we should pass a law to censor them, I think they should be fired. Firing someone for saying something blatantly stupid and with national security ramifications is not censoring them. Fox should take away their platform.

[14holestogie]

That was nothing compared to what the Jon Stewart show has done.

:confused:

Yeah, getting young people in touch with what's really going on using a humourous approach to point out the absurdities and lies of those in control using actual facts.

I may have missed a few episodes, but I've never seen him bash any troops.
Was he hard on Bush? Sure, but early into the new administration, he seems to be an equal opportunity basher.

It may be just a basic cable show, but he does ask the tough questions of those responsible. I don't think that's bad journalism.

[BC-Axeman]

I don't think we should pass a law to censor them, I think they should be fired. Firing someone for saying something blatantly stupid and with national security ramifications is not censoring them. Fox should take away their platform.
In this case there would be nobody working for the major newspapers or most of congress.

[BC-Axeman]

:confused:

Yeah, getting young people in touch with what's really going on using a humourous approach to point out the absurdities and lies of those in control using actual facts.

I may have missed a few episodes, but I've never seen him bash any troops.
Was he hard on Bush? Sure, but early into the new administration, he seems to be an equal opportunity basher.

It may be just a basic cable show, but he does ask the tough questions of those responsible. I don't think that's bad journalism.
I have seen Jon Stewart bash the troops in order to bash Bush. That, in my opinion is worse than bashing Bush would have been. That was the last time I watched Jon Stewart.

[Starscream]

I like FOX News, but I can't understand why they continue to put this Red Eye show on the air.

[ActionAndy]

national security ramifications.

So you know you're being dramatic, right?

This show is on at 3 in the morning (eastern). It's shock humor.

"I didn't like it, so they should lose their jobs!"

Does that sound like an adult to you? Sorry if I take this stuff seriously but I went to school for writing, and I plan to make my living by expressing myself. No one needs to be fired over a crappy series of jokes--btw, the segment wasn't funny. Not because it was offensive, but because it was a bit hackish and unoriginal.

[WildBlueSooner]

I kind of agree. What should get them fired is that show sucks so damn much that nobody watches!

[14holestogie]

So you know you're being dramatic, right?

This show is on at 3 in the morning (eastern). It's shock humor.

"I didn't like it, so they should lose their jobs!"

Does that sound like an adult to you? Sorry if I take this stuff seriously but I went to school for writing, and I plan to make my living by expressing myself. No one needs to be fired over a crappy series of jokes--btw, the segment wasn't funny. Not because it was offensive, but because it was a bit hackish and unoriginal.

:tpd:

This is Fox' late night entry attempting to emulate the shock jock mentality.
It's meant to be lewd, crude and to get a reaction. It seems to have succeeded. Take it for what it is. It's not a serious news program.

[BC-Axeman]

An apology:
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_33132.aspx

[ChicagoWhiteSox]

:confused:

Yeah, getting young people in touch with what's really going on using a humourous approach to point out the absurdities and lies of those in control using actual facts.

I may have missed a few episodes, but I've never seen him bash any troops.
Was he hard on Bush? Sure, but early into the new administration, he seems to be an equal opportunity basher.

It may be just a basic cable show, but he does ask the tough questions of those responsible. I don't think that's bad journalism.

Jon Stewart is a comedian, or at least some think he is, not a journalist. He is not a source for news nor should be. As for asking tough questions, thats alsmost a joke.:2

[ActionAndy]

"I know that the purpose of that show is to be irreverent and humorous, right? But I think they picked the wrong topic and they showed just incredible ignorance as to what Canada's done," he tells CityOnline. "It was really crass and tasteless and I found it very offensive." (From the Apology article).

So he acknowledges the point of the show, and then gets offended when they follow through.

A grown man demanding an apology over words is a sissy.

[hotreds]

A pox on all their houses!

[14holestogie]

Jon Stewart is a comedian, or at least some think he is, not a journalist. He is not a source for news nor should be. As for asking tough questions, thats alsmost a joke.:2


I respectively disagree. Whether you agree or disagree with his slant on things, to get any news from a single source is only doing you a dis-service.
Multiple sourcing is the only way for a reasonable person to come to a reasonable conclusion.

If you're going to write him off because he's a comedian, you apparently saw neither his or Dave Letterman's show the first night back after the attacks on 9/11. Powerful shows. :2

[spectrrr]

Red Eye is not news, it is like watching SNL News or Comedy Central, but not as humorous. :2
:tpd:

[spectrrr]

Personally, I would agree with you 150% if that were aired on a normal news show. And I still agree with you 150% in taking offense to the material presented. But in reality, if you are going to take issue with FOX over that, I think you would also have to take issue with nearly every other major network out there. And I could agree with you on that just as easily. however I can't agree with you if you want to take issue ONLY with FOX, that then becomes a little hypocritical. (And don't worry, US television shows like that bashes our own military even more than the Candian, so don't get too pissed at us from an international standpoint!). Like Rebel said, it would be like boycotting NBC because they host SNL.... :2

[Footbag]

So you know you're being dramatic, right?

This show is on at 3 in the morning (eastern). It's shock humor.

"I didn't like it, so they should lose their jobs!"

Does that sound like an adult to you? Sorry if I take this stuff seriously but I went to school for writing, and I plan to make my living by expressing myself. No one needs to be fired over a crappy series of jokes--btw, the segment wasn't funny. Not because it was offensive, but because it was a bit hackish and unoriginal.

It sounds like the free market to me. It's not like I can fire them from one lowly post in a cigar forum. We'll see if enough people support that crap to keep tuning in. I'd be surprised if they're on in three months.

I'd rather watch infomercials for the Sham-wow, then those idiots.

[WildBlueSooner]

Sham-wow is a fine product...German engineered!

[ChicagoWhiteSox]

I respectively disagree. Whether you agree or disagree with his slant on things, to get any news from a single source is only doing you a dis-service.
Multiple sourcing is the only way for a reasonable person to come to a reasonable conclusion.
If you're going to write him off because he's a comedian, you apparently saw neither his or Dave Letterman's show the first night back after the attacks on 9/11. Powerful shows. :2

I agree that you should get your news from multiple sources. I watch at least 2 national news networks and subsribe to 2 national newspapers. Thats 4 diff. sources. I would just rather choose to get my news from people that know what they are talking about and have experience in what they are talking about. :2

[kzm007]

Fox only has five shows worth watching, in my opinion. Simpsons, King of the Hill (soon to be canceled, sadly) American Dad (not quite as good as) Family Guy, and Dollhouse (amazing sci-fi show, too bad they never give things a chance to flourish).

All those shows except Dollhouse (Fridays at nine EST) are on Sunday nights (eight-ten EST).

I don't bother with the war-related news, especially not trash spewed from the mouths of...those people *shudders* screw politics.

[spincycle]

Personally, I would agree with you 150% if that were aired on a normal news show. And I still agree with you 150% in taking offense to the material presented. But in reality, if you are going to take issue with FOX over that, I think you would also have to take issue with nearly every other major network out there. And I could agree with you on that just as easily. however I can't agree with you if you want to take issue ONLY with FOX, that then becomes a little hypocritical. (And don't worry, US television shows like that bashes our own military even more than the Candian, so don't get too pissed at us from an international standpoint!). Like Rebel said, it would be like boycotting NBC because they host SNL.... :2

I don't take personal offense to what they said on Red Eye, few things rarely get me going. But I feel like I am disrespecting our troops by giving my advertising dollar (in viewership) to a company that supports those comedians. There are shock jocks in this world who can make light of serious matters - Howard Stern although at times offensive, at least attempt to be intelligent.

I watch lots of world programming as it's very available in Toronto (how many places in the world can you watch the 6pm news in 10 languages?) and none of the other major networks, American, British, Italian, Chinese and otherwise, would cross the line as often and with as much disregard as FOX has - see Ann Coulter clips about Canadian forces.

I don't dislike Americans, on the contrary, I think the US is an easy target for blame, but when a country is in crisis, the US is always the first to come to aid. I'm just tired of the anti-allied sentiment from FOX.

Aren't we in this fight together?

[spincycle]

Sham-wow is a fine product...German engineered!

I've given up my sham-wow for a snuggie.. you guys are so 2008.

[Cyanide]

To those that say that its harmless comedy and that the right to speech should override all others I say this:

While I will defend to the death your right to free speech, I will not defend you against the consequences of your speech. There should not be journalistic immunity from saying your thoughts. If these people want to be considered journalists, or comedians, and if journalism wants to paint itself in the colours of a professional body, then they have to set and live up to a code of ethics that includes concepts of integrity and accountability. If I were so drole, so unprofessional in my conduct while serving the public then my credentials would be yanked in a heartbeat.

If these clowns want to say their statements were "taken out of context" or that freedom of speech should protect them from their own idiocy then I say take them to task as to why these things should be considered.

Their freedom of speech is only a right because of the sacrifices put forth by those "fighting few", it is earned for them through the work and tragedy of others. For, in many ways, it is a privelege otherwise and should be marched out to defend rediculousness ever so delicately.

While they should not be barred from spouting their insensitive crass BS, their reputation, careers and legitimacy should be impacted by the quality and accuracy of their words.

Can the buggers

[GWN]

I've given up my sham-wow for a snuggie.. you guys are so 2008.

I'm glad. Vince freaks me out.

And I almost posted a rant thread about those FOX asshats, as I too was incensed. Something like "drop that little @#$^$ in the skinny tie on a road outside Kabul and let him find out for himself."
But then, that's just what they're after. How many people, Canadians in particular, now know this show exists? I say ignore them and maybe they'll crawl back under their rocks of mediocrite.

[GWN]

if journalism wants to paint itself in the colours of a professional body, then they have to set and live up to a code of ethics that includes concepts of integrity and accountability.

We have such a code and live by or face sanctions, both from our readers (or viewers) and the legal system. Those guys on FOX aren't journalists. They're as far from journalism as you can get.

[Cyanide]

True true true

But, if they want to parade around in the drapes of a professional body (in essence they are "playing the part" of journalists, although loosely) then they either have to step up and work within those codes or face "the consequences". Practicing medicine without a license is a felony, I am sure that doing the equivalency within law is probably also illegal. There should be similar considerations then within journalism.


But I think I will stop before I start sounding like a communistic crack-pot (oooops, some would say I am already there)

We have such a code and live by or face sanctions, both from our readers (or viewers) and the legal system. Those guys on FOX aren't journalists. They're as far from journalism as you can get.

[ChicagoWhiteSox]

We have such a code and live by or face sanctions, both from our readers (or viewers) and the legal system. Those guys on FOX aren't journalists. They're as far from journalism as you can get.

Are you talking about FOX News as a whole, or just Red Eye?

[GWN]

Are you talking about FOX News as a whole, or just Red Eye?

Red Eye. Haven't seen a standard newscast on FOX.

[ChicagoWhiteSox]

Red Eye. Haven't seen a standard newscast on FOX.

I see. I agree that Red Eye doesnt have real journalism. I totally agree that the origninal statement made on Red Eye was completely BS. Should they be taken off the air? I dont think so. The viewer should control that. Should you stop watching FOX because of it? Thats your choice. But I think there is a reason that FOX News leads all other news channels.

[BC-Axeman]

I don't think more than 15 people knew Red Eye existed before this. If now 45 people watch it then they have tippled their audience. A total success story.

[spectrrr]

While they should not be barred from spouting their insensitive crass BS, their reputation, careers and legitimacy should be impacted by the quality and accuracy of their words.

Agreed, but now you're talking about a deep rooted societal and ethical problem at the core of well.... TOO MANY @#^#$&%@$#%!@ people in this society today... I fear we may have already trashed ourselves beyond ethical repair :(

[RBOrrell]

I am deeply offended by not just this particular episode, but the more deeply rooted stereotypes and ignorances that are the real reason that they said these things in the first place. While I don't want to appear hypocritical (and in no way am I trying to accuse any BOTL here), in my experiences, the "worldlyness" of most citizens of the USA is below that of most other countries. Why is that? They don't have to be because they are as powerful as they are. However, the ignorance of Canada (or any other country for that manner) bites them once in a while like this particular show.

I have no idea who these 5 people are. I have never heard of them, except I recall the "comedian" was on Last Comic Standing in the past, I guess that makes him an expert in international affairs. They clearly show that they have no idea of this country, and they are no better than the people you see driving across the border in July with skis strapped to their cars looking for the ski hills!

The sad thing is, we really can't do anything about it. A "boycott" of Fox or it's advertisers would not be effective because technically, the Canadian audience is not part of their demographic and our dollars are not a factor. I don't watch any Fox shows anyways, there is nothing there worth watching (cartoons? give me a break).

I get sick and tired of watching the sterotypes of this country portrayed on US-based TV.

This country has a long history of participation in international military actions. We were participants in the Boer War and then both World Wars - way before the US in both cases I may add - Korea, the first Gulf war and lately Afghanistan. How many Americans know about the Canadians that enlisted, fought and died in the 1960's and 1970's in Vietnam? We invented the PeaceKeeping arm of the UN and spent many years doing just that. We are a country of less than 30 million people. At the end of WW II, we had the 4th largest navy in the world. We do not shy away from a fight - as long as it's justified!

The more I think about these jerks on Fox the angrier I get. I would suggest to anyone to pick up a book on Canadian history, I think you would be surprised at what you read.

[King James]

:confused:

Yeah, getting young people in touch with what's really going on using a humourous approach to point out the absurdities and lies of those in control using actual facts.

I may have missed a few episodes, but I've never seen him bash any troops.
Was he hard on Bush? Sure, but early into the new administration, he seems to be an equal opportunity basher.

It may be just a basic cable show, but he does ask the tough questions of those responsible. I don't think that's bad journalism.

Its more the young people who use Jon Stewart, a comedian, as their only source of "news" and take it all as fact

As far as this video goes, Red Eye is hardly news as well...and what they said is in real poor taste and if they were taken off the air I wouldn't lose any sleep.

[BC-Axeman]

I wouldn't take these comedians seriously. We have top politicians, even presidential candidates call our soldiers lazy, stupid losers who had no future so they joined the military. This is how Jon Stewart portrayed them in order to bash Bush. Al Franken has done the same. One Congressman claimed our Marines were GUILTY of MURDER and the hadn't even been tried! Our leading newspapers propagate these stereotypes. These guys on Red Eye were cracking jokes about soldiers asking for time off. That is pretty funny. They did take it too far, but there are far worse things, especially in Canada, to worry about than some almost nonexistent comedians who no one had ever heard about before.

[ChicagoWhiteSox]

I wouldn't take these comedians seriously. We have top politicians, even presidential candidates call our soldiers lazy, stupid losers who had no future so they joined the military. This is how Jon Stewart portrayed them in order to bash Bush. Al Franken has done the same. One Congressman claimed our Marines were GUILTY of MURDER and the hadn't even been tried! Our leading newspapers propagate these stereotypes. These guys on Red Eye were cracking jokes about soldiers asking for time off. That is pretty funny. They did take it too far, but there are far worse things, especially in Canada, to worry about than some almost nonexistent comedians who no one had ever heard about before.

:tpd:

[heavyd]

I watched segments of that Red Eye show when it first aired. It's supposed to be witty and funny, but it's neither. It's actually unbelievably bad television. I'm amazed that it is still around.

[zonedar]

I wouldn't take these comedians seriously. We have top politicians, even presidential candidates call our soldiers lazy, stupid losers who had no future so they joined the military. This is how Jon Stewart portrayed them in order to bash Bush. Al Franken has done the same. One Congressman claimed our Marines were GUILTY of MURDER and the hadn't even been tried! Our leading newspapers propagate these stereotypes. These guys on Red Eye were cracking jokes about soldiers asking for time off. That is pretty funny. They did take it too far, but there are far worse things, especially in Canada, to worry about than some almost nonexistent comedians who no one had ever heard about before.

+1.

Couldn't have said it any better.

BTW, to the Canadians and other allies, Thanks for being there for your friends.

[ActionAndy]

I am deeply offended by not just this particular episode, but the more deeply rooted stereotypes and ignorances that are the real reason that they said these things in the first place. While I don't want to appear hypocritical (and in no way am I trying to accuse any BOTL here), in my experiences, the "worldlyness" of most citizens of the USA is below that of most other countries. Why is that? They don't have to be because they are as powerful as they are. However, the ignorance of Canada (or any other country for that manner) bites them once in a while like this particular show.

I have no idea who these 5 people are. I have never heard of them, except I recall the "comedian" was on Last Comic Standing in the past, I guess that makes him an expert in international affairs. They clearly show that they have no idea of this country, and they are no better than the people you see driving across the border in July with skis strapped to their cars looking for the ski hills!

The sad thing is, we really can't do anything about it. A "boycott" of Fox or it's advertisers would not be effective because technically, the Canadian audience is not part of their demographic and our dollars are not a factor. I don't watch any Fox shows anyways, there is nothing there worth watching (cartoons? give me a break).

I get sick and tired of watching the sterotypes of this country portrayed on US-based TV.

This country has a long history of participation in international military actions. We were participants in the Boer War and then both World Wars - way before the US in both cases I may add - Korea, the first Gulf war and lately Afghanistan. How many Americans know about the Canadians that enlisted, fought and died in the 1960's and 1970's in Vietnam? We invented the PeaceKeeping arm of the UN and spent many years doing just that. We are a country of less than 30 million people. At the end of WW II, we had the 4th largest navy in the world. We do not shy away from a fight - as long as it's justified!

The more I think about these jerks on Fox the angrier I get. I would suggest to anyone to pick up a book on Canadian history, I think you would be surprised at what you read.

Who cares. You didn't know who the comedians were, they weren't on your radar. You're a grown man. Your country is full of grown men. So act like it and ignore idiots.

[Seanohue]

Do what I do; don't watch TV. I think it's been 9 months since I've seen a live TV program.

[pnoon]

Who cares. You didn't know who the comedians were, they weren't on your radar. You're a grown man. Your country is full of grown men. So act like it and ignore idiots.

Let's keep the personal comments toward Asylum members out of the discussion here.

[BC-Axeman]

BTW, to the Canadians and other allies, Thanks for being there for your friends.
+1
Thanks

[RBOrrell]

Who cares. You didn't know who the comedians were, they weren't on your radar. You're a grown man. Your country is full of grown men. So act like it and ignore idiots.

Thanks you for such an excellent post. You're right, they were not on my radar, and why should a statement about a Canadian Armed Forces General be on theirs? It's attitudes like those portrayed on the show in question and your attitude here, explains why the US is not held in the highest regard around the world.

[King James]

Thanks you for such an excellent post. You're right, they were not on my radar, and why should a statement about a Canadian Armed Forces General be on theirs? It's attitudes like those portrayed on the show in question and your attitude here, explains why the US is not held in the highest regard around the world.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________________________________
Let's keep the personal comments toward Asylum members out of the discussion here.

:tpd:

[BC-Axeman]

Thanks you for such an excellent post. You're right, they were not on my radar, and why should a statement about a Canadian Armed Forces General be on theirs? It's attitudes like those portrayed on the show in question and your attitude here, explains why the US is not held in the highest regard around the world.
AS compared to France, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, Mexico, Italy, Syria, China, Pakistan, Columbia, Egypt, Indonesia, etc.
:r:r:r:r:r
I'm not losing any sleep.

[ActionAndy]

Thanks you for such an excellent post. You're right, they were not on my radar, and why should a statement about a Canadian Armed Forces General be on theirs? It's attitudes like those portrayed on the show in question and your attitude here, explains why the US is not held in the highest regard around the world.

LOL, I now represent the United States? Alright, let me clarify: I was not trying to insult you. I'm trying to say this: Don't let people that don't matter matter. Getting deeply offended by words gives the speaker power. Do not give him that power by reacting.

To further clarify, I think Canadians are perfectly fine. I've never met a bad Canadian (though most of my experiences in Canada involved strippers, bartenders, etc.) I think anyone serving their country (i.e Candian military) is brave and honorable: which is exactly why I don't think it's necessary to be offended on their behalf.

My point was that I don't think you should give these guys and their words power over your day. Don't let them wreck your day man, by knowing you're on the side of right you should be secure.

[mithrilG60]

There are very very few news broadcasts around the world that are unbiased enough for me to give any form of serious attention to and Fox is certainly not one of them. The BBC and CBC are really the only ones that report equally on all sides of matters of real significance. Besides those I tend to try and read 3 - 4 online newsprint sources; one with a very left wing slant, one with a very right wing and 1 - 2 that are moderate. While I personally am centre-left by Canadian standards (which would probably be very left wing by American standard), I feel that if I don't see the news from both the far-left and far-right view points I can't possible make an informed decision on the reality of the situation. That kind of balance is what's completely missing in almost all media news whether the outlets are American, Canadian, etc.

But I think there is a reason that FOX News leads all other news channels.

Don't equate entertainment value with actual news reporting. News is meant to be informative, well balanced, unbiased and factual yet all those hallmarks come a distant second to shock/entertainment value on all the US cable news channels (Fox, CNN, etc.) as well has many of the major network programs. That's also certainly not a purely American phenomenon as the same unfortunate trend applies to many of the equivalent news programs running on Canadian networks.

While the entertainment-news programs do give you some idea of current events, they also ALL contain underlying motivations that skew the reporting and as a result the truth they portray. Always there is an underlying financial motivation as ramping up the entertainment value of the news cast provides more revenue in the form of advertising.

While the financial motivation is unfortunate, what's scary is the underlying political motivations. The constant blind and unquestioning (aka biased?) support given to the Bush administration by both Fox and CNN are a prime example of that. Regardless of a journalist's personal political views or leanings their job is to critically report on and question the actions of political leadership. The media play a very important role in keeping politician's honest and on course by holding their decisions and actions up to public scrutiny, and since the general public's perceptions are formed almost entirely on what the media tells them, the dangers of the media giving any administration carte blanche are very high.

[spectrrr]

BTW, to the Canadians and other allies, Thanks for being there for your friends.

+1

Do what I do; don't watch TV. I think it's been 9 months since I've seen a live TV program.

+2
The rare TV shows I'm interested in watching, I stream.


...let me clarify: I was not trying to insult you. I'm trying to say this: Don't let people that don't matter matter. Getting deeply offended by words gives the speaker power. Do not give him that power by reacting.

Terribly stated the first time around, you make your point well this time.

[spectrrr]

I am deeply offended by not just this particular episode, but the more deeply rooted stereotypes and ignorances that are the real reason that they said these things in the first place. While I don't want to appear hypocritical (and in no way am I trying to accuse any BOTL here), in my experiences, the "worldlyness" of most citizens of the USA is below that of most other countries. Why is that? They don't have to be because they are as powerful as they are. However, the ignorance of Canada (or any other country for that manner) bites them once in a while like this particular show.


:tpd: However I don't think its "they dont have to be because they are as powerful as they are". I think its because on a whole, the majority of our citizens are rarely required to interact with other countries. We have 1/3 of the freakin continent, citizens that do venture into Canada find that is not very different from us, so they have little opportunity to "grow" their "world view" because it basically looks to them like anywhere else stateside they've been. Got to any place in Europe, everyone speaks 2+ languages and has traveled around the place BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO (to clarify, that's a good thing). They are surrounded on all sides by many other equally small countries and thus interact with them. We are just too big with no one to play with!

[spectrrr]

There are very very few news broadcasts around the world that are unbiased enough for me to give any form of serious attention to and Fox is certainly not one of them. The BBC and CBC are really the only ones that report equally on all sides of matters of real significance. Besides those I tend to try and read 3 - 4 online newsprint sources; one with a very left wing slant, one with a very right wing and 1 - 2 that are moderate. While I personally am centre-left by Canadian standards (which would probably be very left wing by American standard), I feel that if I don't see the news from both the far-left and far-right view points I can't possible make an informed decision on the reality of the situation. That kind of balance is what's completely missing in almost all media news whether the outlets are American, Canadian, etc.



Don't equate entertainment value with actual news reporting. News is meant to be informative, well balanced, unbiased and factual yet all those hallmarks come a distant second to shock/entertainment value on all the US cable news channels (Fox, CNN, etc.) as well has many of the major network programs. That's also certainly not a purely American phenomenon as the same unfortunate trend applies to many of the equivalent news programs running on Canadian networks.

While the entertainment-news programs do give you some idea of current events, they also ALL contain underlying motivations that skew the reporting and as a result the truth they portray. Always there is an underlying financial motivation as ramping up the entertainment value of the news cast provides more revenue in the form of advertising.

While the financial motivation is unfortunate, what's scary is the underlying political motivations. The constant blind and unquestioning (aka biased?) support given to the Bush administration by both Fox and CNN are a prime example of that. Regardless of a journalist's personal political views or leanings their job is to critically report on and question the actions of political leadership. The media play a very important role in keeping politician's honest and on course by holding their decisions and actions up to public scrutiny, and since the general public's perceptions are formed almost entirely on what the media tells them, the dangers of the media giving any administration carte blanche are very high.

I used to work in the media. I was a photographer (still am) and held down the position of Photo Editor for a few years. Which meant I had the misfortune to listen to the back and forth "discussion" in the newsroom with all the other journalists (I was the black sheep of the bunch, the only non-writer... I just took pretty pictures :tg).

Let me tell you, it was APPALLING. Journalistic ethics and integrity? UNbiased oppion? :bs, MY DOG is capable of more unbiased thought than any journalist. It just doesn't fuking exist anymore. believe me, spend a little time in there, and you wouldnt even trust the news if you were pulling it from 6 different sources.

[BC-Axeman]

Dogs set the standard for integrity. We should all hope to be so true.

[spincycle]

Dogs set the standard for integrity. We should all hope to be so true.

+1

[hotreds]

http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/pigwrestle2AP_450x300.jpg

[ChicagoWhiteSox]

There are very very few news broadcasts around the world that are unbiased enough for me to give any form of serious attention to and Fox is certainly not one of them. The BBC and CBC are really the only ones that report equally on all sides of matters of real significance. Besides those I tend to try and read 3 - 4 online newsprint sources; one with a very left wing slant, one with a very right wing and 1 - 2 that are moderate. While I personally am centre-left by Canadian standards (which would probably be very left wing by American standard), I feel that if I don't see the news from both the far-left and far-right view points I can't possible make an informed decision on the reality of the situation. That kind of balance is what's completely missing in almost all media news whether the outlets are American, Canadian, etc.



Don't equate entertainment value with actual news reporting. News is meant to be informative, well balanced, unbiased and factual yet all those hallmarks come a distant second to shock/entertainment value on all the US cable news channels (Fox, CNN, etc.) as well has many of the major network programs. That's also certainly not a purely American phenomenon as the same unfortunate trend applies to many of the equivalent news programs running on Canadian networks.

While the entertainment-news programs do give you some idea of current events, they also ALL contain underlying motivations that skew the reporting and as a result the truth they portray. Always there is an underlying financial motivation as ramping up the entertainment value of the news cast provides more revenue in the form of advertising.

While the financial motivation is unfortunate, what's scary is the underlying political motivations. The constant blind and unquestioning (aka biased?) support given to the Bush administration by both Fox and CNN are a prime example of that. Regardless of a journalist's personal political views or leanings their job is to critically report on and question the actions of political leadership. The media play a very important role in keeping politician's honest and on course by holding their decisions and actions up to public scrutiny, and since the general public's perceptions are formed almost entirely on what the media tells them, the dangers of the media giving any administration carte blanche are very high.


FOX News is a news channel. They give news. Some of there shows more than others. But the main point is they give news. News that is by far more balanced than any other national news channel. If I am equating FOX news as entertainment, then where do people get their national news? FOX news leads all national news. But if you believe that the majority are watching FOX news for entertainment, then i ask again, where do they get there news from on TV?


With regards to the second bold highlight, again, some news channels skew more than others. I believe that FOX news is the most balanced of them all:2 That is why the majority of Americans wanting news turns to FOX news. If they didnt like FOX news, they wouldnt watch it. If they wanted entertainment, they would watch Jon Stewart. If they wanted far skewed news, they would watch msnbc. But the numbers dont lie. People are watching FOX news for balanced news.:2

[spectrrr]

Dogs set the standard for integrity. We should all hope to be so true.

:r touche +1

[BroncoHorvath]

I would like to see those 4 clowns out on a mission over there so they could experience what every soldier goes through every time they go out on missions no matter what country they are from.
They have no class and even though they tried to apologize, I choose not to accpet their apologies...:mad:

[14holestogie]

Fox fair and balanced? Yeah, OK. :)

About as balanced as MSNBC.

I am a little more unbalanced than my therapist thinks, I guess. ;)

[mithrilG60]

The rare TV shows I'm interested in watching, I stream.

Or just download them...... there's no commercials at all then ;)

FOX News is a news channel. They give news. Some of there shows more than others. But the main point is they give news. News that is by far more balanced than any other national news channel. If I am equating FOX news as entertainment, then where do people get their national news? FOX news leads all national news. But if you believe that the majority are watching FOX news for entertainment, then i ask again, where do they get there news from on TV?


With regards to the second bold highlight, again, some news channels skew more than others. I believe that FOX news is the most balanced of them all:2 That is why the majority of Americans wanting news turns to FOX news. If they didnt like FOX news, they wouldnt watch it. If they wanted entertainment, they would watch Jon Stewart. If they wanted far skewed news, they would watch msnbc. But the numbers dont lie. People are watching FOX news for balanced news.:2

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.

[Rockestone]

Or just download them...... there's no commercials at all then ;)



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.

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!

:2

[WildBlueSooner]

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!

:2

I love BBC!

[mithrilG60]

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!

:2

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 :2

[JJG]

I've never this "Red Eye" segment, but they look like a bunch of stoned out jokers trying to get a rise out of people, not too credible if you ask me

I had never heard of the red eye show either until I saw the clip in question. The funny part is, one of their panelist actually IS a big stoner. I remember seeing something about how he made a documentary similar to "super size me" where he got high constantly for a month straight. in fact I think it was called "super-high me"

Anyhow, I agree that FOX has stepped in sh*t a few too many times for me so I don't watch anymore but keep in mind, it's entertainment-journalism. These guys were just ignorant and didn't realize that their comments were insulting instead of funny.

[Rockestone]

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 moronic pundit's view on the world as if it were either news or fact :2

Your problem is that you feel like if it's not boring it's not real news. You are wrong. I'm sorry that you are that narrow minded.

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.

[Starscream]

Fox fair and balanced? Yeah, OK. :)

About as balanced as MSNBC.

I am a little more unbalanced than my therapist thinks, I guess. ;)

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

[BC-Axeman]

Nobody has clean shoes in the news "reporting" business. TV news is the worst just because of the short attention span of the audience. The internet tends to have more in depth information. Yet the TV news is a good place to hear the headlines in order to start to find out more information. If every time you hear a story with a statement made by some "expert" and you don't hear an opposing statement, even if it's from a Devil's Advocate point of view, then you are being editorialized to. Often, what is left out is more important than what is said.

[pnoon]

Your problem is that you feel like if it's not boring it's not real news. You are wrong. I'm sorry that you are that narrow minded.


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

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

[Rockestone]

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]

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]

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

:tpd:

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.

[ChicagoWhiteSox]

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.

[ChicagoWhiteSox]

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 :2

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

[ReggieFSULaw]

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

[spectrrr]

Or just download them...... there's no commercials at all then ;)
*whistles innocently* http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/angel/angel04.gif It's a public forum :tg


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.

:tpd: see comment below

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!
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]

:tpd:

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]

*whistles innocently* http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/angel/angel04.gif It's a public forum :tg

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.

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]

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 (http://www.cbc.ca/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 (http://www.thestar.com/)), 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 (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message) can't (or at least shouldn't) be the sole method of educating one's self on how our deepest opinions are formed. :2

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

[spectrrr]

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 :tg:tg:tg


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]

*envisions a warning from Peter in his future*

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

[TheRiddick]

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]

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

Something like this:



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]

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 (http://www.cbc.ca/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 (http://www.thestar.com/)), 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 (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message) can't (or at least shouldn't) be the sole method of educating one's self on how our deepest opinions are formed. :2

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.
:tu

[Starscream]

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.
:tu

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.

[BC-Axeman]

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.

[ChicagoWhiteSox]

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.


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.

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/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-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- :tpd:

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. :tu

[BC-Axeman]

Seems we're arguing OPINIONS.

We all win. :tu
I would call it "expressing points of view". Just my opinion.

[hotreds]

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k292/NinjakZ/dead-horse.gif

[BC-Axeman]

This horse is very much alive and in your living room eating the furniture.

*edit* Great graphic.^

[Starscream]

Many articles posted on Drudge are sourced from newspapers. If newspapers shut down then there will be less sources for Drudge to draw from.



I should have clarified. The Newspapers may in the future cease to print paper editions, but have online editions. One of the big papers in NC has more hits on its website than it has newspaper subscriptions. The organizations themselves will continue to exist, just present the news in a different medium. I should have used nytimes.com as an example rather than Drudge.

[tnip23]

One point everyone seems to be missing about the "bias" at FOXnews is that many of the programs on the channel are opinion/commentary shows and not hard news per se. The hard news is reported usually in smaller headline type segments in a completely unbiased manner. Where you may get a conservative feel from FOX is that most of the hosts of the commentary shows are on the right side of the aisle, however even in these formats I find most of the commentators have guests from the opposite side and give them a chance to give their point of view. Also when Fox has panel discussions they actually have an equal distribution of panelists representing both sides and even the middle of the political spectrum. This doesn't happen on any other network, on other networks 4 leftists to 1 conservative is considered balance.

These opinion shows on FOX are akin to the editorial pages of any newspaper. I have no problem with any show labeled as opinion having a bias. I find the leftist slant that exists in the actual news reporting of all the major networks and newspapers much more disturbing and insidious as they too often present their opinions in the guise of being just a simple presentation of the facts.

The one area I may remain open to discuss regarding the "bias" of FOX is the selection of stories they choose to cover on their hard news segments. You will see many stories covered on FOX, not covered by the others. Still even in this case it may just be because the bias of the other networks keeps them from covering them. Examples would be positive stories from Iraq and any story that would be considered negative towards Obama. Stories that Fox would cover in an unbiased manner with appropriate fact checking, but the other networks would generally ignore.

[spectrrr]

Seems we're arguing OPINIONS.

We all win. :tu

:tpd:, but only 50% of it :r

In reality, we're all arguing TWO different things, that are so closely related that most folks have just been mixing them together.

One is an opinion of the journalism of FOX news and other newscasters, particularly an opinion that is somewhat influenced by one's own personal politics. What one "likes" to hear is included in this, or what one "feels" is an accurate representation of the world. If you are big into Political Correctness, than your idea of what you would like to see in a "proper" newscast is going to differ from someone who is not very PC. Either way, not a factual discussion.

The other is not opinion, and focuses solely on the facts of the journalistic practices of FOX or another organization in question. Example, BBC is admittedly biased. No personal opinion there. Other's have argued that because FOX typically airs people from both sides of the aisle in a discussion show, that they are not biased, while other's still have pointed out that the hosts of most shows on FOX are right leaning, so therefore the network is biased. In this case, it's a discussion of FACTS to arrive at a conclusion, rather than an opinion. Of course the conclusion arrived at will probably vary a little from person to person and take the form of an opinion... but at the least discussion was factual, right?

[spectrrr]

....other networks would generally ignore.

I'll avoid just adding to the pot on the rest of your post (which I agree with mostly), and instead focus on this one line. Someone else (too lazy to read back and find it) mentioned something to the effect of "the news not reported was just as important as what they do report."

How very, very, VERY true this is. We can all come up with examples, so I won't cross this into a political discussion, however its really a simple principle that most people overlook when discussion a network's bias. What do they NOT report on? Clearly if MSNBC never reports on a positive story out of Iraq, then viewers have no idea to what degree and ratio positive VS negative things happen. Or if you hit up a news source that only reports the positive things, again viewers have no idea where things stand on the big pictures, positive vs negative.

Bottom line, there's no easy solution for this one, and I think is much more indicative of the TRUE bias of a news source. It's easy to judge a bias by what they say. But much harder to locate and identify a hidden bias, based on what they DONT say.

[spectrrr]

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k292/NinjakZ/dead-horse.gif

yep... we're getting close :ss