The most trusted NEWS source in America?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Were talking about MSNBC and FOX. Two of the most watched shows on either channel or O'Reilly and Oberman. Its obviously clear who is MORE biased!

It's obvious? Just because one has guests and one doesn't? Not when one shouts down the opposing voice.

Now, let's go back to discussing the bias of the NEWS.



Bias can easily be seen by watching what is reported and what is not reported, what comments and opinions are heard, what comments and opinions do not get heard.
Like I said, I bet you would have a very hard time showing this.
 
I have a question: what's the deal with their Red Eye programming on there late at night? I've seen bits of it when flipping through the channels, and wow, it's annoying.

Angela

Ha! I watched that show a lot when it first came on. I'm surprised to hear it's still on! Red Eye was actually Fox's attempt to gain a younger audience. Fox kills everyone in the ratings, but if you break down the demo, the bulk of their audience is older and less affluent. And that hurts them in what they can charge for advertising. CNN's ratings, for example, are pathetic compared to Fox, but their revenues are similar because CNN can charge more per minute.

So Fox has been trying to reach a younger audience for years. Remember the Half-Hour News Hour? That was modeled after the Daily Show and it debuted around the same time as Red-Eye. Both were attempts to engage young people into seeing the "silliness" of liberal thought. But it was all wrong. There was nothing clever or witty about it. It was just stupid. And mean. They followed Rush Limbaugh's style of humor.

While Jon Stewart uses an amplified false humility as his delivery style, which appeals to young people, Limbaugh uses an amplified false hubris, which clearly doesn't (unless of course it's a persona, like Colbert). Limbaugh's mean-spirited and witless style of humor appeals only to the old and the bigoted.

Truly, if there's one thing that conservatives don't do well...(well, I guess other than art, music, film, literature)...it's comedy.

There's radio, I guess. They do radio well. And that's one thing liberals don't do very well at all.
 
It's obvious? Just because one has guests and one doesn't? Not when one shouts down the opposing voice.

Now, let's go back to discussing the bias of the NEWS.

.

I guess you don't watch Keith. Keith has guest every night. But only guest that will agree with him and tow his line. Say what you will about O'Reilly, you do get to hear and opposing view point. With Keith, you get nothing but his view and guest supporting his view! Thats an enormous difference. Were talking FOX and MSNBC, and these are the two shows on each that the public watches the most.

Like I said, I bet you would have a very hard time showing this

Its actually pretty easy. Simply list what NPR mentioned and then show what they did not mention on any given topic.
 
I guess you don't watch Keith. Keith has guest every night. But only guest that will agree with him and tow his line. Say what you will about O'Reilly, you do get to hear and opposing view point. With Keith, you get nothing but his view and guest supporting his view! Thats an enormous difference.

This is true, but it doesn't prove or disprove any measure of bias. The fight is part of O'Reilly's brand. It's part of Fox's brand. Conservatives love a good fight. Liberals don't. Ever hear screaming on NPR?

It's two different audiences. Each requires a different style. Think about it. Liberals hear someone say "bring it on" and it makes them cringe. Conservatives hear someone say "bring it on" and it sends tingles through their truck nuts.
 
I guess you don't watch Keith. Keith has guest every night. But only guest that will agree with him and tow his line. Say what you will about O'Reilly, you do get to hear and opposing view point. With Keith, you get nothing but his view and guest supporting his view! Thats an enormous difference.
You're right I don't watch Keith, only seen him a few times.

Were talking FOX and MSNBC, and these are the two shows on each that the public watches the most.
But most watched show does not = network. I think you're just trying too hard to avoid the discussion of biased news and biased networks.

Its actually pretty easy. Simply list what NPR mentioned and then show what they did not mention on any given topic.
Well you made the claim that they're "drenched" so the burden of proof is upon you, that's how civilized debate works.
 
so how are NPR and PBS dripping with bias and really just the same as Fox News?

It's all about what they don't report. They don't report that Obama is from Kenya, they don't report on how Watergate shouldn't have been exposed, and have they ever reported on how any scientist that believes in climate change is a socialist puppet?

They are the liberal media.
 
So you think NPR is liberal?:hmm:

I'm not sure what "is liberal" means. Its listeners are predominately liberal and that dictates their style, but I think NPR is a news organization like any other in that it employs liberals, conservatives, and moderates. But does it actively pursue an agenda the way Fox and MSNBC do? No. Like most of the major networks, they may be populated by mostly liberals, but they still abide by basic standards of objectivity.

The whole liberal media bias thing that energized the right wing in the 80s and 90s was mostly just propaganda. It was brilliant, too. If they could convince you that you weren't hearing the truth from news, schools, etc., they could convince you of anything: that the New Deal prolonged the Depression, that Hitler was a leftist, that Kennedy would be a Republican today, that native americans didn't really help the pilgrims...it goes on and on....
 
I guess you don't watch Keith. Keith has guest every night. But only guest that will agree with him and tow his line. Say what you will about O'Reilly, you do get to hear and opposing view point. With Keith, you get nothing but his view and guest supporting his view! Thats an enormous difference. Were talking FOX and MSNBC, and these are the two shows on each that the public watches the most.
O'Reilly is a giant ass hat, but has thankfully mellowed out recently as Fox's daytime anchors and editorial style have become more and more bizarre over the years.

At the end of the day, Bill and Keith are both blowhard commentators, and trying to develop some kind of'metric as to who is more 'fair' is a useless thing to even try and do.
 
I'm not sure what "is liberal" means. Its listeners are predominately liberal and that dictates their style, but I think NPR is a news organization like any other in that it employs liberals, conservatives, and moderates. But does it actively pursue an agenda the way Fox and MSNBC do? No. Like most of the major networks, they may be populated by mostly liberals, but they still abide by basic standards of objectivity.

The whole liberal media bias thing that energized the right wing in the 80s and 90s was mostly just propaganda. It was brilliant, too. If they could convince you that you weren't hearing the truth from news, schools, etc., they could convince you of anything: that the New Deal prolonged the Depression, that Hitler was a leftist, that Kennedy would be a Republican today, that native americans didn't really help the pilgrims...it goes on and on....


this is fair. i would agree that the NPR audience tends to be more liberal.

and, yes, discrediting reality was a brilliant strategy.
 
1. Has Keith Oberman ever had anyone on his program that opposed his point of view? No. But if you think I'm wrong, please show me.

2. Has Bill O'Reilly ever had anyone on his program that opposed his point of view? Yes. Multiple times a week.

Just based on these facts, which network, MSNBC or FOX, do you think is more biased?
This is an awful line of thinking on so many levels.

1. I think nothing of Keith Olbermann. The man's intelligent, but he just wants to get attention, so he does asinine things all the time that make him deplorable.

2. Bill O'Reilly's guests are almost always people he knows can't argue a convincing point. The few times he's brought smart people on, they school him (see: Jon Stewart).

3. I see them as two sides of the same coin: smart guys who just make asses of themselves to make cheap political points and get attention.

4. Why do I have to base my entire opinion of the networks on a one-on-one comparison of just two guys?

5. Glenn Beck has no comparison anywhere. Every statement that comes out of his mouth is some mixture of fear-driven paranoia, lies, exaggeration, hysteria, stupidity, arrogance, and fraud.

6. The big difference between Fox and MSNBC is their news presentation, as Irvine has stated. Not the commentary, which, aside from Beck, cancels each other. Fox has been exposed over and over again slanting their news programs.
 
2. Bill O'Reilly's guests are almost always people he knows can't argue a convincing point. The few times he's brought smart people on, they school him (see: Jon Stewart).

...or, more often, he edits it out.
 
Oh agreed they've got their own biases, but as far as a worldwide overview, it's where ai like to read my news, hell viewing US news through that lens is much more stomachable than even the most inoffensive of US sources.
 
Fox News takes heat for News Corporation’s GOP donation – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Data collected by CQ Moneyline shows that News Corporation, through its political action committee, has contributed over $105,500 to Democratic candidates in the 2010 election cycle, while donating $74,700 to Republicans during the same time period. News Corporation's PAC has also donated $7,500 to Democratic-affiliated leadership PACs and $14,500 to GOP-related PACs. News Corporation, owned by Rupert Murdoch, has also given a total of $45,000 to other Democratic and Republican committees.

On the Democratic side, that includes $30,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and $15,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. As for Republicans, News Corporation donated $30,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee and $15,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

A corporation's PAC is subject to a maximum spending limit of $5,000 per candidate per year and $15,000 per political party per year.

News Corporation is not alone among media corporations who donated to political parties and candidates, ultimately raising the issue of whether media companies and politics should mix.

"This is one piece of the puzzle that the public should consider when they are viewing coverage of politics," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics.

General Electric, which owns NBC, has also made substantial political contributions in the 2010 election cycle. For example, GE donated $688,900 to Democrats through its PAC this election cycle compared to $410,100 to Republicans. The company has also given $75,500 to Democratic-affiliated leadership PACs and $74,500 to Republican-affiliated leadership PACs.

Meanwhile, GE has donated $237,000 to the Democratic Governors Association and $205,000 to the Republican Governors Association.

The PAC of Time Warner, the parent company of CNN has given $70,500 to Democratic candidates in the 2010 election cycle compared with $41,500 to Republicans. Time Warner also donated $5,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

The political action committee for Viacom, the parent company of CBS, has contributed $108,700 to Democratic candidates this election cycle and $64,000 to Republicans, according to CQ Moneyline. The PAC has also contributed $22,000 to Democratic-affiliated leadership PACs and $21,500 Republican-affiliated leadership PACs. Viacom also donated $4,000 to the Pennsylvania Democratic Party last April.

And Disney, the parent company of ABC, has given $110,500 to Democratic candidates and $95,000 to Republicans through its PAC. It has also donated $16,000 to Democratic-affiliated leadership PACs and $20,000 to Republican-affiliated committees. Disney has also given $11,000 to Democratic Party PACs and $20,000 to Republican Party PACs.


Can't we just accept that everyone does it?

Any network that would hire and promote as their biggest stars Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews, Schultz and O'Donnell must assume that the general public might believe such progressive cheerleading would permeate into all other hours of the day at MSNBC. The fact that that same quintet of whackjobs has "anchored" (using loosely) election coverage- the single most important day for a news operation- on multiple occasions only reinforces those assumptions. It's a business move by them, and it's terribly stupid.
 
Any network that would hire and promote as their biggest stars Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews, Schultz and O'Donnell must assume that the general public might believe such progressive cheerleading would permeate into all other hours of the day at MSNBC. The fact that that same quintet of whackjobs has "anchored" (using loosely) election coverage- the single most important day for a news operation- on multiple occasions only reinforces those assumptions. It's a business move by them, and it's terribly stupid.

So is it only a "terribly stupid" business move for MSNBC?

Please explain...
 
I guess this IS real and not Photoshopped. Don't know what "Fox Nation" is as opposed to foxnews.com.

164023_10150112125958092_555078091_7566090_2162261_n.jpg
 
Can't we just accept that everyone does it?
just because corporations do it doesn't make it right. would you like to see "2012 democratic primaries, brought to you by disney!"? or what have you? while i understand campaigning and such costs money, and these days you need a lot of money if you want to get elected (be it for president or congress or whatever), but effectively seeing these corporations giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to BOTH sides of the party line doesn't seem right to me.

i know there will always be corruption in politics (again, on both sides, i'm not pointing fingers at either side or even any company in particular) but blatant disregard for the laws put in place to prevent companies being able to buy politicians (and yes, i'm aware it still happens, doesn't mean i like it) are there for a reason.
 
I guess this IS real and not Photoshopped. Don't know what "Fox Nation" is as opposed to foxnews.com.

164023_10150112125958092_555078091_7566090_2162261_n.jpg

I'm glad we have Faux to tell us the truth and get to the heart of the issue.

Thank you and your bigoted audience owes you, for they've been unaware that this has been happening for over 200 years.
 
i did have a chuckle reading the article and looking at the end where it encourages people to share it over the various internet mediums, and shows people tweeting about it. all/almost all were people talking of its ridiculousness. i guess as long as people read it.
 
Can't we just accept that everyone does it?



Asked whether such donations raise questions about other networks' coverage, Daschle said: "The Fox contribution is in a completely different league. Other media firms' donations are generally small and about equal to the many committees that receive money." His group spent Tuesday trying to drum up interest in the issue, unsuccessfully pitching a dozen Fox producers and hosts to get Daschle booked on the channel.


:shrug:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom