Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I watch it every day; explains my avatar.

bbundy

A right wing talking head from William Crystals Project for the New American Century think tank neocon Lobby group calls Fox News “a wing of the Republican party” on air when talking about Benghazi.

How to End a Fox News Interview Abruptly: Call Fox 'A Wing of the Republican Party' | Alternet

bbundy

More content for the stupid from Fox news. When I do watch Fox I for entertainment I find it very difficult to make it past 1 hour of it before the twisted stupid comes out. in order to brainwsh the republican base with BS. Hell Im evn a Liberal And I can't stand watching MSNBC, especially the Ed show.

Fox News Hypes Supposed Threat Of The U.N. Stealing The Internet | ThinkProgress

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

Slow day in the politics section.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Headline: FOX News makes its money with sensationalist reporting, will hype any story that seems weird and scary.
Other media outlets also guilty of sensationalism to varying degrees.

bbundy

Somewhere there is a line between bias and bullshit. If that line is repeatedly, knowingly, and deliberately crossed you should loose all credibility as a news organization. In some countries it is illegal to broadcast such news. I prefer my news factual and boring.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

then watch news on any channel between noon and 5 pm.

Unfortuneately for you, FoxNews is the most watched news channel by a great deal.

Unfortuneately for those viewers, they have no idea what the other side sees/does not see, and are out of touch. For example, the Republican's manufactured story on the killing of an American embassador via the wings. This story has yet to be picked up, not because it lacks credibility, but because it lacked sex. And even then, it was dropped fast, because there were more racists to point out.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I agree completely. The only broadcast news outlets that I listen to with any regularity are NPR and BBC World. Of all of the broadcast media, they appear to be the most committed to the fundamental concept of "journalism" in the sense of reporting with the primary goal of educating the audience.

Everything else is entertainment, regardless of whether the subject matter has some basis in current events. Doesn't matter if you're talking about Fox News, CNN Headline, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, or Geraldo. Their primary function is to captivate the audience, not to inform them.

Comparing the content of MSNBC, CNN or FOX to journalism makes about as much sense as watching Jerry Springer in the hope of gaining insider analysis of the Chinese commodities markets. And I'm saying this from the point of view of a guy whose paycheck comes from these very broadcasters.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

And even with those outlets you (general "you," not "you, Trubo.net Joe Perez") have to be conscious of the difference between a "talk show" format and "news reporting" formats.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Oh, absolutely. Just like I'm aware of the difference between a Top 40 format and a Golden Oldies format on an FM station. But they're both music stations whose principle function is to assemble an audience together for the purpose of being advertised at.

In the case of television, the same underlying concept applies when comparing FOX News (mostly round-table opinions and commentary) to CNN Headline (mostly gossip about what celebrity has been arrested) to any other broadcast network which relies upon third-party opinion pieces (eg: we interview this professor of X to get his take on Y) and over-hyping of simple issues (eg: if X is elected then they will either force you to do Y or take way your right to do Y.)

Extremist points of view are good for ratings, but they should not be confused with "news reporting."

The newspapers are a bit better about this than the broadcast outlets, however print is dead.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Says someone publishing text online...

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

You should watch the McNeil Lehrer Report on PBS, yes, PBS, if you only want news and not agenda driven crap from either side. NPR ain't it.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

And now for something completely different...





and this is fitting accompaniment...

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

IB owns a printing press now?


I don't have television, nor do I really devote time in my day to receiving news as a discrete event. Radio is convenient as it's something I can absorb while driving, while working in the garage, etc.

But yes, I agree WRT to MacNeil Lehrer. I'd argue against the implied notion that NPR, on the whole exhibits a tendency to broadcast "agenda driven crap", and I don't think anyone can argue against the fact that that they do, in fact, perform journalism (in contrast to news-like programming designed principally to attract and retain a commercial audience.)

I am impressed, in particular, with the "journalistic guidelines" which Jim Lehrer himself read on the air a few years ago:

• "Do nothing I cannot defend.
• "Cover, write, and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me.
• "Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.
• "Assume the viewer is as smart and as caring and as good a person as I am.
• "Assume the same about all people on whom I report.
• "Assume personal lives are a private matter until a legitimate turn in the story absolutely mandates otherwise.
• "Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories, and clearly label everything.
• "Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except on rare and monumental occasions.
• "No one should ever be allowed to attack another anonymously.
• "And finally, I am not in the entertainment business."

Emphasis on that last one is mine, but I think it illustrates well the underlying point that the majority of broadcasters (both radio and television) ARE in the entertainment business, regardless of what format the programming is in.


I think it's important to draw a distinction here, as well. When we criticize something like Fox News, we are actually making two similar but very distinct criticisms.

The first is that they exhibit a bias. This may or may not be true, and if it is, they may or may not attempt to mask this with slogans such as "Fair and balanced coverage" or words to that effect. This seems to be the area upon which most people fixate, however I argue that it is the far less significant of two great faults, the second of which is:

That they attempt to pass off as "Journalism" that which is fact entertainment. Bias is completely irrelevant to this criticism. One could be completely fair and unbalanced and still completely fail to perform actual journalism, erring instead on the rather more popular formats of opinion, commentary, editorialism, etc. These things are not inherently evil, however they are not a substitute for newsgathering and should not be confused for such.

It is this latter are in which one can hardly question the integrity of sources such as NPR, PBS, the BBC, and also one other source which many people have heard of but few have actually listened to.

Al Jazeera.

I'm being totally serious when I say that. There's absolutely no question that a potential exists for "bias" (from the point of view of a citizen of the Americas or western Europe) and a media outlet owned by the state government of Quatar, a country ruled by an absolute monarch who makes no concessions towards petty notions such as "democracy."

But they don't try to mask this fact.

What I mean is this. When somebody criticizes Fox News about biased reporting, they respond with an ad campaign designed to counter that notion. But Al Jazeera? ****, they don't care what you think. They just report the news and to hell with what their detractors say.

Kind of like the BBC.

One of my favorite quotes on the subject comes from Hillary Clinton, speaking last year in her official capacity as Secretary of State before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on the subject of whether the US is, in general, losing the "information war" around the world.

"Viewership of Al Jazeera is going up in the United States because it's real news. You may not agree with it, but you feel like you're getting real news around the clock instead of a million commercials and, you know, arguments between talking heads and the kind of stuff that we do on our news which, you know, is not particularly informative to us, let alone foreigners."

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

BBC and NPR are both government entities, and really, really liberal ones at that. They may not scream "I HATE CONSERVATIVES", but when BBC has a half hour segment about the polar ice cap disappearing in 50 years, it's simply a more subversive version of the same thing.

NPR thinks the wind instruments at the end of a segment is classy. It's all just fart noise to me.

Enginerd

iTrader: (1)

Let's get real. The more you passionately hate or love a newscaster, he more times they can show you an advertisement for Prilosec and Scottrade.


Have you ever noticed that the commercials on daytime TV are nothin' but A) Lawyers trying to get viewers to weasle money out of injury or medical claims or B) Sell ridiculous products that absolutely no one needs other than the bum that lies on a couch all day (e.g. snuggies and "But Wait!!!" products)

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

When Charles Krauthammer is talking on TV, no one else is allowed to speak in my house.

jeff_man

iTrader: (7)

Starting to hope Brain is just a political troll.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

me, no. that post was dead serious. I think the same thing when I read bob's post. And I read them that way and just lol a lot.

jeff_man

iTrader: (7)

Romney Face Tat Guy Wants the Ink Removed, Says Romney Has 'No Dignity'