I'm done with FOX.

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.

Originally Posted by mithrilG60

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.

Originally Posted by spectrrr

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.

Originally Posted by TheRiddick

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/arti...-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-

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.

Originally Posted by 14holestogie

Seems we're arguing OPINIONS.

We all win.

I would call it "expressing points of view". Just my opinion.

[hotreds]

[spectrrr]

Originally Posted by hotreds

yep... we're getting close

[spectrrr]

Originally Posted by 14holestogie

Seems we're arguing OPINIONS.

We all win.

, but only 50% of it

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?

[Starscream]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.