fox news and clear channel in bed together? never would've thunk it...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Se7en

Rock n' Roll Doggie
Joined
Feb 10, 2001
Messages
3,531
Location
all around in the dark - everywhere
Mon Dec 6,11:34 AM ET
SAN ANTONIO - Clear Channel Communications Inc., the nation's largest radio station operator, has picked Fox News Radio to be the primary source of national news for most of its news and talk stations, officials announced Monday.

The five-year agreement initially covers more than 100 radio stations.

Fox will provide a five-minute top-of-the-hour newscast, a nightly news broadcast, and around-the-clock dedicated national news coverage. In return, Fox News Radio will have access to news produced by San Antonio-based Clear Channel's news network.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=494&u=/ap/20041206/ap_en_tv/clear_channel_fox_3&printer=1

i thought some here might be interested in this little tidbit of news information.

fair and balanced as always.
 
wow, i really hate clear channel. they ruined everything i used to like about listening to the radio. i listen to denver stations, and then go to san diego, and what do i hear? THE EXACT SAME FREAKING STATIONS!
 
can't wait until they all get together and burn Dixie Chicks CDs and Shep Smith covers the event.

this is actually very, very terrifying. we are watching those on top slowly but surely consolidate their power -- we're not a dictatorship but we are turning into an oligarcy.
 
While I laughed my arse off during the Simpsons when the Fox News truck had a huge Bush/Cheney 2004 logo on it, I don't single out Fox News and Clear Channel for having bias. I think New York Times leans pretty far left.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
While I laughed my arse off during the Simpsons when the Fox News truck had a huge Bush/Cheney 2004 logo on it, I don't single out Fox News and Clear Channel for having bias. I think New York Times leans pretty far left.

while i probably don't agree with you labeling the new york times "far left," they do tend to have a more liberal outlook.

fox news will be fair and balanced when pigs fly out of my buttocks.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
While I laughed my arse off during the Simpsons when the Fox News truck had a huge Bush/Cheney 2004 logo on it, I don't single out Fox News and Clear Channel for having bias. I think New York Times leans pretty far left.

Is that the same episode where the Simpsons had their version of Fox News and on the crawl at the bottom it was saying stuff like "Do Democrats cause cancer?" and stuff like that. HILARIOUS.
 
The episode that was on last night (today is Monday Dec 6 just for the record). That was brilliant.
 
U2democrat said:


Is that the same episode where the Simpsons had their version of Fox News and on the crawl at the bottom it was saying stuff like "Do Democrats cause cancer?" and stuff like that. HILARIOUS.

Damn, I missed that. I love that kind of humor...it's almost too funny.
 
Krusty for Kongres :wink:

In all seriousness political contributions from Fox employees was significantly more for the DNC than GOP. All this whining about it being the most slanted station in the history of mankind, that it is controlled by the Republicans etc. is most likely attributed to the fact that it not the same as all the other major stations and it is actually growing. What other station would run a program like Eurabia? It fills a niche and I think that that can only be a good thing, having a media that is for all intensive purposes monolithic is a very bad thing.
 
Last edited:
A_Wanderer said:
Krusty for Kongres :wink:

In all seriousness political contributions from Fox employees was significantly more for the DNC than GOP.

Do we have anything to back this up? And I'm not even sure if this would really mean anything, where are the CEOs leanings would really be the question to ask.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Krusty for Kongres :wink:

In all seriousness political contributions from Fox employees was significantly more for the DNC than GOP.

Oh please. Where did you hear this? Probably on Fox, right? *LOL* This is exactly the problem with Fox. They constantly spew embarrassingly misleading, dubious and sometimes even manipulative information. So when you hear this statistic again, please do me a favor and ask what constitutes "Fox employee"? Is it just those employed at the Fox News Channel in New York? Or is it Fox Broadcasting Company, which has about 200 affiliates across the globe. Does it include all the employees at 20th Century Fox in Hollywood and Fox Searchlight Pictures, the New York Post and about 200 other print publications around the globe which are owned by Fox? And then, does it include just the employees who influence policy? Or does it mean the janitors, the researchers, the copy editors, the production artists, the web developers, the drivers, the best boys, gaffers and key grips?

All I care about is who Roger Ailes supports. And we all know the answer to that.
 
It was on a third party site extrapolating from that database that showed political contributions from - to be more specific - fox news employees. In any case the network does have a particular slant in its reporting but considering the spectacular failures of some of the established media organisations recently accusations against Fox and only against Fox of bias and sloppy journalism seem a little bit myopic.
 
NY Times is blatantly left-leaning, but they don't get half the flack that Fox gets for being more favorable to the right than other establishments, or as they say, "The mouthpiece for the White House....."

Does Fox lean somewhat right in a lot of their OP-ED PIECES? Sure....but they always present an opposing view. However, I dont' believe they have a right-wing view on their news reporting, I think it's accurate. Even Jon Stewart said so, and he's not exactly a staunch conservative, is he?
 
I also bring up another point that Jon Stewart made on Crossfire. Just because you present both partisan sides of an issue doesn't make your news coverage impartial. It just means you spin it both ways.
 
dano said:
I also bring up another point that Jon Stewart made on Crossfire. Just because you present both partisan sides of an issue doesn't make your news coverage impartial. It just means you spin it both ways.

In effect, you're presenting two opinions and not just one.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
Okay, maybe not "far left" but left leaning would be a more fair way to put it.

I agree with your first point more. The NYT is a far left newspaper; and pretty much every media research report I've read supports this.

Funny how liberals hate Fox News because it openly leans right, while close their eyes to liberal leaning stations (CNN, MSNBC) and the vast majority of the print media. I guess whatever suits the cause.
 
The Disciple said:
NY Times is blatantly left-leaning, but they don't get half the flack that Fox gets for being more favorable to the right than other establishments, or as they say, "The mouthpiece for the White House....."

Does Fox lean somewhat right in a lot of their OP-ED PIECES? Sure....but they always present an opposing view. However, I dont' believe they have a right-wing view on their news reporting, I think it's accurate. Even Jon Stewart said so, and he's not exactly a staunch conservative, is he?

Exactly. Fox actually lets both sides speak, which is what I want. On the other hand, the New York Times for example is pretty much silent on giving both sides of the arguements.
 
ImOuttaControl said:


I agree with your first point more. The NYT is a far left newspaper; and pretty much every media research report I've read supports this.

I find it very humerous that the NYT is considered "far left". I don't think you've really seen far left yet. I've seen far left, and that isn't it.
 
ImOuttaControl said:


I agree with your first point more. The NYT is a far left newspaper; and pretty much every media research report I've read supports this.

Funny how liberals hate Fox News because it openly leans right, while close their eyes to liberal leaning stations (CNN, MSNBC) and the vast majority of the print media. I guess whatever suits the cause.


the "liberal" media is a myth. it was concocted in the late 80's/early 90's by right wing think tanks, and even the architects of the plan, Bill Kristol editor of the Weekly Standard and a neocon, has stated that it was simply an element of the right doing what they could to "work the refs."

seriously.

and let's not even mention the right-wing echo chamber of Drudge-Fox-Talk Radio that gave legitamacy (!!!) to the fully erroneous claims of the Swift Boat Veterans that.

no one works the media better than the right, and hats off to them -- they do it superbly.
 
Shhh... the neocons keep the big lie going and if you question it you will be liquidated.

Whats really dumb is that Fox is the evil conservative monolithic thing controlled by conservative Rupert Murdoch and yet they will air the gay church welcome advertisment that CBS refuses to.

And there is no massive liberal media, but there certainly is a slant among some circles of journalists that can be reflected in articles; case in point when terrorists are called millitants and activists, the Bush administration is called the Bush regime (SBS World News), the fake memo's and subsequent refusal to acknoledge that for a week, and yes the SBV who were all labelled as discredit and liars by the media without even after some of their claims were substantiated by the Kerry camp.

There are definitely right wing influences in media, talk radio works very well for the right but it would be very dumb to suppose that the left are victims of some vast right wing conspiracy and that they have little or no influence.
 
Back
Top Bottom