? for conservatives. Is Fox News fair and balanced? - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-20-2005, 01:22 PM   #46
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 01:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by drhark
CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, BBC are, to varying degrees, the liberal media

FOX and most of talk radio, to varying degrees, is the conservative media

It's better for everyone that we know who we're getting our news from.

okay, for the sake of argument, let's think about degrees of liberalness and conservativeness.

on a scale of 1-10, let's say what you label the "liberal" media are, in fact, liberal. they're about a 2 or a 3.

Fox is about a 7, and talk radio is about an 8 or a 9 on the conservative scale.

it's not even a contest. you seem to think you're getting both sides of an argument -- as well as you're making the false assumption that there are onlyl two sides to an argument -- but what you're getting is a centrist/slightly left-of-center view and a right wing/hard right wing point of view.

and even that's going on YOUR self-reinforcing/justifying assumptions.

and, yes, the liberal media claim did surface in the late 80's/early 90s and, yes, it was a political tactic.

rich white people tend to vote republican. not all white people are republican, not all republicans are white, but most republicans are white.

Clinton as golden boy? hilarious.

but this is like arguing with a brick wall. let me know when you're ready to have a serious discussion. i recommend turning on Jim Lehrer once in a while.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 04-20-2005, 01:31 PM   #47
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 06:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


Hey! Don't knock the BBC. (I admit that it is left-leaning.)
Not knocking them. Nothing wrong with admitting which way they lean. I wish there was a way for newscasters and news organizations to inform the public of their biases but I would not advocate any sort of ratings system as that would be inaccurate and ridiculous so I'll leave it to the bloggers, pundits, watchdog groups, writers, opinion journalists who have thus far managed to get all sorts of opinions and truths out there that were previously unavailable.
__________________

__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 04-20-2005, 03:11 PM   #48
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,435
Local Time: 06:08 AM
The BBC are actually very good.

I am trying to look up the website of that womens' group I mentioned. I want to buy that book..."God's Politics: Where the Right Gets it Wrong And The Left Doesn't Get It" by JIM Wallis (got the name wrong)....it costs $30 and I'm broke. So I tok it out of the library and I didn't copy down the full name. I emiled someone on Wallis' organization website, www.sojo.com, (or net, forgot which), asking for the address, b/c that is ne group i want to join.

I know people will get sick of this, but I can't push this book enough on people. It has changed my life. It isn't a long book, but it tells what is REALLY happening behind the scenes.
__________________
Teta040 is offline  
Old 04-20-2005, 05:47 PM   #49
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,149
Local Time: 01:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

okay, for the sake of argument, let's think about degrees of liberalness and conservativeness.

on a scale of 1-10, let's say what you label the "liberal" media are, in fact, liberal. they're about a 2 or a 3.

Fox is about a 7, and talk radio is about an 8 or a 9 on the conservative scale.

it's not even a contest. you seem to think you're getting both sides of an argument -- as well as you're making the false assumption that there are only two sides to an argument -- but what you're getting is a centrist/slightly left-of-center view and a right wing/hard right wing point of view.
Is this basically the scale your making up?

v-------------------------------v------------------------------v
liberal----------------------centrist---------------------conservative


The ratings you give are confusing.


You bring talk radio into this... talk radio is an effective medium unfortunately you cannot compare it to the viewership, readership of the NYT, LA Times, CNN, MSNBC, the big three networks, etc... Do you believe conservatives, as much as they benefit from AM radio (LOL), wouldn't trade the meager influence of AM radio for that of major networks and print media?

Its not about whose/ what is most conservative/ liberal, it is about "pervasive influence."

Walter Cronkrite, Newsweek Editor in Chief Evan Thomas, a journalist from the Washington Post or LA Times, etc... have all said the media does lean to the the left. Hell, estimations were made that the White House press pool (on MSNBC) voted were primarily leaned left.

Again, obviously the OPINION shows on FOX are slanted and filled with bias as they are OPINION shows (O'Reiley, Hannity & Combs, Cavuto's show, etc.). But that is not any different from Lou Dobbs, Crossfire, etc. on CNN. If people compare the slants of Aaron Brown and say Brit Hume... I doubt there would be a difference. Also, to JUST watch Fox News alone or to JUST watch CNN alone as your news source would be ridiculous IMO. Just as it would be ridiculous to trust 100% the reporting of the Associated Press or Reuters. Media is all about making money these days through the use of entertainment...
__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 04-20-2005, 07:38 PM   #50
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 01:08 AM
firstly, everyone check this site out: www.mediamatters.org

what i am saying, even though i don't agree with the "liberal" charge -- and let's not forget, what conservatives mean when they say "liberal" is very far from what liberal means, and it's now become a word defined totally on conservative terms -- the media that is labled as "liberal" is much less "liberal" than the conservative media is conservative. it's not a direct comparison. you can't say "i listen to CNN to get the left perspective, and Fox to the the right perspective." you've set up a false binary opposition. and you yourself say that people might "lean left." that's very different from unabashed conservativism.

and, again: is someone who is liberal incapable of doing their job as a journalist? trust me, people -- i've worked in television, i've done shows that have been very political. the producers go to great lengths to be as objective as they possibly can be ... there is tremendous angst and hand-wringing about presenting the most complete picture possible.

you know -- they're DOING THEIR JOB AS JOURNALISTS. do you think the same thing goes on at Fox?

Aaron Brown? i've watched his show, repeatedly, and if anything, he's on the conservative side of things, and he goes to great lengths to appear "unbiased."

look at the others ... Lou Dobbs does a show about money -- do you see any shows on labor unions on CNN? of course not ... you could argue that, by definition, it's a conservative show. Crossfire is hardly liberal (it's also cancelled). for christ's sake, it's the left and the right shouting at each other and one making about as much sense as the other.

i will concede, though, that the majority of people who work in news do have some bias.

these are smart, educated, driven people with college degrees who are well read, urban, and sophisticated. they do probably agree, as a whole, with the following assumptions:

-- all things being equal, there is no difference between the intelligence of the races
-- sexual orientation is not a choice
-- women are as capable as men and should be afforded the same opportunities, which is to say that there is no "natural" sex role for women to fufill
-- life is complex, reality is shades of grey

if such assumptions, to you, are "liberal," they you might have a case about the make-up of people who work in the news.

most of us would probably call such assumptions "mainstream."
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 04-24-2005, 05:14 PM   #51
Refugee
 
wizard2c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,580
Local Time: 06:08 AM
reply

Personally I don't care about any of the cable news......I get my news ahead of time....even before it breaks.

__________________
wizard2c is offline  
Old 04-24-2005, 07:40 PM   #52
War Child
 
learn2kneel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In the headlights of a stretch car...
Posts: 855
Local Time: 01:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

these are smart, educated, driven people with college degrees who are well read, urban, and sophisticated. they do probably agree, as a whole, with the following assumptions:

-- all things being equal, there is no difference between the intelligence of the races
-- sexual orientation is not a choice
-- women are as capable as men and should be afforded the same opportunities, which is to say that there is no "natural" sex role for women to fufill
-- life is complex, reality is shades of grey
are you saying that these are things the "conservative" media don't abhere to.

(and also tom brokaw didn't graduate from college and peter jennings was a high school drop out)
__________________
learn2kneel is offline  
Old 04-24-2005, 07:49 PM   #53
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 01:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by learn2kneel


are you saying that these are things the "conservative" media don't abhere to.


no. i am saying that these are beliefs carried by the vast majority of urban, sophistocated, educated people out there (the converse isn't true, you could be rural and uneducated and still believe those things, obviously). these are beliefs held by the vast majority of people who work in the news. if that is a "liberal" bias, then you might have a point. the point that no one can make is that said "liberal" bias translates into more positive coverage of Democrats than Republicans, or that newscasters are shaping the news in order to fit some specific dogma.

the reverse, in this second case, is true. members of the conservative media are every bit as educated and sophistocated as the members of the mainstream media; however, they *do* give positive coverage of Republicans and shape their news reports to fit a very specific dogma.

what i'm essentially saying is that you don't have liberal media and conservative media, that such a binary opposition has any sort of meeting. you have the mainsream media, some small left wing media (air america, the Nation, etc.) and a growing right wing media that fashions itself to be a conservative "alternative" not to the liberal media but to the mainstream media -- they are, in effect, giving creedence to the charge that the MSM is liberal, when it is not in any meaningful sense.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 04-25-2005, 08:15 AM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 01:08 AM
Pretty much all mainstream American media is conservative when you are looking at it from a view outside America. As for Fox, I wouldn't even dignify them with the word "news".
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 04-25-2005, 08:29 AM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 02:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4
Pretty much all mainstream American media is conservative when you are looking at it from a view outside America.
This is often said, but never explained.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 04-25-2005, 09:07 AM   #56
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 01:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
This is often said, but never explained.


i would say that all mainstream American news is centered around the general idea that most of what America does in the world is for good, at least the intentions behind the actions as opposed to the results. this is perfectly natural -- and why all nation's news coverage comes from a specific viewpoint ... French news is going to naturally be more sympathetic in their portrayal of French actions in Ivory Coast, for example. this isn't necessarily a criticism, simply a statement of fact.

therefore, US news looks very conservative because of this working assumption that only becomes apparent when people spend the time to seek international news from a variety of different countries.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 04-25-2005, 09:15 AM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 02:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
i would say that all mainstream American news is centered around the general idea that most of what America does in the world is for good, at least the intentions behind the actions as opposed to the results.
I don't see it that way. If this were the given truth, I would think we would see at least a hint of good news on Iraq, such as the peace process. Bad news comparable to good news on anything isn't generally slanted towards the best we have going for us.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 04-25-2005, 09:20 AM   #58
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 02:08 AM
Also, I don't see how the supposed "optimism" makes it conservatiive.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 04-25-2005, 09:24 AM   #59
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 01:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
I don't see it that way. If this were the given truth, I would think we would see at least a hint of good news on Iraq, such as the peace process. Bad news comparable to good news on anything isn't generally slanted towards the best we have going for us.


you're seeing a basic tenet of all news, everywhere: "if it bleeds, it leads."

there's no question that explosions and blood make for a more gripping headline to lure a viewer, and Iraq has had no shortage of blood and explosions. there is more of an emphasis on violence and less on the "peace process" (what do you mean? do you mean the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, or something else in Iraq). however, you do not see hard questioning of American motivations or even extended inquiries into, say, Halliburton, the construction of enormous American military bases in Iraq, or, most egregiously, the fact that 26 Iraqi prisoners have been killed in US run prisons. where is the "liberal" media on that case? they've been beaten back by executives who think that their audience, while fascinated and shocked and horrified by violence on Iraqi police officers, simply can't stomach the idea of America's sons and daughters torturing prisoners to death, or at least keeping them in conditions condusive to death.

i don't want to hear that either. as an American, i'm horrified that someone from my country could do such a thing. however, i also know that American troops are no morally better nor worse than troops from other nations -- on an individual level, they might have stricter codes of conduct than other nations, but i think it's impossible to state that an American is objectively better than, say, a Canadian troop or a Polish troop -- and that if the troops in question were, say, Bulgarian, or Jordanian, i wouldn't be as disturbed.

does that make sense?

American news -- with PBS and NPR excepted, and those being the places where, i think, you get the best news because they don't have to worry about ratings -- is obsessed with competition and ratings, and as such violence makes headlines, but no news program is going to spend too much time on a piece that should make all Americans, everywhere, feel utterly ashamed of their nation and their soldiers.

i am ashamed of what has happened in these Iraqi prisons, and i am ashamed of the individual soldiers who allowed 26 prisoners to die.

but no news executive wants to make me feel that way, lest i change the channel.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 04-25-2005, 11:25 AM   #60
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 02:08 AM
It explains your perspective clearly, so yes, it makes sense. Just to clarify my terminology on what I meant by the peace process for example:

I was lucky enough to catch MS-NBC reporting that 85% of Iraq is peaceful (this happened to be a good two years ago), with a fearless reporter greeting Iraqis who appeared to be laid back about the whole situation. Also, it's been a while since we've seen footage of the troops in their most down to earth form - greeting Iraqi citizens and letting them know they mean no harm to innocent people.

I hope that helps.
__________________

__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com