Presidential Candidate Blames Fox News for Anticipated loss

[mmx1]

Oh trust me, I'm most definitely not confusing the Fox News Network's complementary programs with it's mainstream newscasting. It is all equally shitty and unrepresentative of true journalism. It's like they publish media with the sole aim of not reporting news, but provoking controversy. It's garbage, plain and simple.

And this is unique to Fox how? Are any of your comments any less relevant for any of the cable networks? Even programs like 60 minutes and Meet the Press are a shadow of their former selves.

The only broadcast program I consider worth a damn is Frontline.

 

[m0tbaillie]

If you loose a state its because you did not connect with the people and find common ground. Its a little ridiculous to waste time blaming a news agency when you could be offering up solutions and reasons you should be elected.

If you lose a state because you did not connect with the people of that state and find a common ground then that's one thing. If you lose a state because it's chalked full of racist bigots (see: West Virginia) then that's quite another.

However, that's neither here nor there because the man is most likely going to be our future president.

And this is unique to Fox how? Are any of your comments any less relevant for any of the cable networks? Even programs like 60 minutes and Meet the Press are a shadow of their former selves.

The only broadcast program I consider worth a damn is Frontline.

While it is undeniable that all of the major networks tinge their news reports with bias here and there, if you think any of them are on par with the level of bias that Fox employs then you don't watch much news.

...if you're looking for actual journalism, you could stick to reading and not the boob tube.

That's exactly what I do. In fact, I think most people who are interested in current events, politics, and generally getting the straight dope, so to speak, read it and don't watch it. People watch TV to be entertained, even when they're watching the news. I don't know anybody who follows politics or current events in more than passing that resorts to the major news networks to get their news.

 

[Scoob]

if you think any of them are on par with the level of bias that Fox employs then you don't watch much news.

But quite a few of us have been on the frontlines of the GWOT. Which gives us an interesting perspective when viewing the "news" on your perceived less-biased networks.

CNN is the most counter-productive influence in America since McCarthy or hippies. CNN has done to news what MTV did to music.

 

[AJB37]

CNN has done to news what MTV did to music.

Killed the radio star???

 

[wink]

CNN is the most counter-productive influence in America since McCarthy or hippies. CNN has done to news what MTV did to music.

+1

 

[wink]

If you lose a state because it's chalked full of racist bigots (see: West Virginia) then that's quite another.

I don't suppose you had former KKK member and DEM Senator Byrd in mind did you? Ah, didn't think so. I wonder if all the bigots you see in WV own guns and go to church. I don't imagine any are Democrats, senators or otherwise, or are any other race then Caucasian?

 

[Scoob]

Killed the radio star???

Yes. In this case the radio star, though, would be a news anchor you can trust to deliver actual journalism.

 

[phrogdriver]

If you lose a state because you did not connect with the people of that state and find a common ground then that's one thing. If you lose a state because it's chalked full of racist bigots (see: West Virginia) then that's quite another.

Glad to see you respect the democratic process. Is your statement in regards to WV intended to illustrate irony by using a predjudiced comment to decry predjudice?

However, that's neither here nor there because the man is most likely going to be our future president.

Perhaps, but at least partially due to what is commonly termed,"reverse racism," e.g. those voting for him on the basis of group solidarity and whites who think it shows their own supposed "enlightenment." My personal opposition to his candidacy is entirely due to my lack of agreement with him on the issues, not due to the color of his skin. I suspect most of those who have voted against him think the same.

While it is undeniable that all of the major networks tinge their news reports with bias here and there, if you think any of them are on par with the level of bias that Fox employs then you don't watch much news.

I watch a LOT of news. If you think Ted Turner's radical green and incredibly hypocritical near-socialist views don't color CNN, you've lost your mind. Check out Bernard Goldberg's book "Bias" if you want examples of same in the network news media.

That's exactly what I do. In fact, I think most people who are interested in current events, politics, and generally getting the straight dope, so to speak, read it and don't watch it. People watch TV to be entertained, even when they're watching the news. I don't know anybody who follows politics or current events in more than passing that resorts to the major news networks to get their news.

I can agree with you there. People tend to forget than TV news exists to MAKE MONEY. If people don't watch, they don't get paid. That is the true allegiance of any of these organizations, far higher than their committments to any party or philosophy.

 

[wink]

While it is undeniable that all of the major networks tinge their news reports with bias here and there, if you think any of them are on par with the level of bias that Fox employs then you don't watch much news.

If your favorite broadcast news program reported that the amazing 60,000+ rally for Obama in OR was preceded by a free concert by the hottest home town band in rock, then I'd be shocked. No telling of course how many would have come out to see Obama anyway. But don't you think it is worth noting that a free outdoor concert on a beautiful day by a hometown band making it big just might have attracted a few of those people? Maybe a lot? But no, it is easier to report half the facts and let folks believe they all came to hear the next messiah speak.

 

[RockySLP]

The purpose of a news agency is to gain viewers/readers and sell advertising time/space. Although most Americans probably believe that these people owe us something in terms of accountability, that expectation is very ill-defined.

Journalism stresses the need for a neutral point of view and equal treatment of facts. People seem to equate this with a completely unbiased presentation of reality. That's not the case in practice, so why do we expect it? Why can't we just admit that certain news sources contain a certain bias? Actually, why don't THEY admit it? That might make us too European, perhaps. A term like "journalistic substance" doesn't mean anything specific -- what should we actually expect from them?

As for Fox News, yes, they have more commentary; however, their front desk news anchors make only a small attempt to appear neutral. HercDriver is right. I'm not condemning it, but let's call a spade a spade.

Mainstream news agencies seem to imply that they have higher standards. I agree Fox News is overt, but not necessarily worse (use of "fair and balanced" notwithstanding).

 

[Ducky]

If you lose a state because you did not connect with the people of that state and find a common ground then that's one thing. If you lose a state because it's chalked full of racist bigots (see: West Virginia) then that's quite another.


While it is undeniable that all of the major networks tinge their news reports with bias here and there, if you think any of them are on par with the level of bias that Fox employs then you don't watch much news.

First of all, he has also won many votes based on race. So that invalidates your argument because it goes both ways.

If you would like to continue to drink the liberal college kool aid and believe that Fox is "evil" go right ahead. I have watched the other channels and have tried to determine what Obama brings to the table other than "CHANGE," but never is any factual information presented on what needs to be changed or how to do it. All I hear is how great and brilliant he is.

Additionally, I have listened to both right and left wing talk radio. Granted, there are some off the wall opinions on right/conservative radio, but never have I heard comments such as F*** G.W. Bush like I have on the left wing channel(Sirius Radio); nor have I ever heard the more conservative news media ever refer to our troops as "cold blooded killers." Enjoy the Communist News Network. Be sure to let me know how it is.

 

[wink]

Although most Americans probably believe that these people owe us something in terms of accountability, that expectation is very ill-defined.

Actually they are accountable. They just don't recognize it. They have a constitutional protection to publish whatever they want. Because of that, they have a responsibility to be fair and accurate. They are, to put a point on it, accountable to the citizens that have defended that constitution and their right to publish what they want. The least they can do is be as fair and unbiased as possible. Very very few take that responsibility seriously anymore. And some, like Time, freely admit there is no real universal journalistic standard but a shifting standard with apparently no foundation. In otherwords, they define the truth.

 

[RockySLP]

Actually they are accountable. They just don't recognize it. They have a constitutional protection to publish whatever they want. Because of that, they have a responsibility to be fair and accurate. They are, to put a point on it, accountable to the citizens that have defended that constitution and their right to publish what they want.

Sir, I agree very much. I do think, however, think that what's fair is difficult to define and we have only indirect methods of voicing our disapproval. If Fox News has done one thing, it has offered some counterpoint (and competition) to keep others in check.

I think this is an incredibly important issue that never gets enough attention. Despite the proliferation of the internet, we are still listening to a great deal of corporate news media, whose interests are not necessarily aligned with the interests of the public. At the same time, we recognize the sizable influence they have over our politics. I have to think that we should shed the idea that these sources are capable of non-bias and rely on ourselves to view them in that light. Given the value of each broadcast minute, there's a bias simply in the time they allocate to particular subjects.

 

[Scoob]

This country needs to make a distinction between "The Press" (with the associated 1st Amendment freedoms it is entitled to) and "Entertainment News Media" (who should be allowed nowhere near the implied legitimacy that comes with Constitutionally protected rights).

However, with the current state of affairs on The Hill, I don't think they're in any position to wield that kind of power responsibly.

 

[feddoc]

..... If you lose a state because it's chalked full of racist bigots (see: West Virginia) then that's quite another......

.

I'm not even from there, yet I am tempted to make you squeal like a pig for your bigoted remarks.