The most trusted NEWS source in America?

[corianderstem]

Even when it changes over to the "true crime and prison shows" network at night?

(really not interested in the argument, I just think it's so funny how MSNBC airs those shows after they're done being newsy)

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by 2861U2

^ I hate rehashing this whole argument, but do you really believe it's just those two hours on MSNBC with a liberal agenda? It's the whole operation. The whole day.

it's not, though. does the top brass at MSNBC release memos like the ones about global warming? or their directive to tell *all* their anchors to not say the words "public option"?

the reason why is that focus groups responded positively to the words "public option," so Fox directed everyone to say "government option" or some derivative, because the Fox News viewer a priori hates the government.

From: Sammon, Bill
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:23 AM
To: 054 -FNSunday; 169 -SPECIAL REPORT; 069 -Politics; 030 -Root (FoxNews.Com); 036 -FOX.WHU; 050 -Senior Producers; 051 -Producers
Subject: friendly reminder: let's not slip back into calling it the "public option"
1) Please use the term "government-run health insurance" or, when brevity is a concern, "government option," whenever possible.
2) When it is necessary to use the term "public option" (which is, after all, firmly ensconced in the nation's lexicon), use the qualifier "so-called," as in "the so-called public option."
3) Here's another way to phrase it: "The public option, which is the government-run plan."
4) When newsmakers and sources use the term "public option" in our stories, there's not a lot we can do about it, since quotes are of course sacrosanct.

ComPost - Can't say 'public option' on Fox News? Try these instead!

if you can find similar behavior on MSNBC, outside of Olbermann and Maddow -- and, can we at least admit that Maddow has just about the best writing and research and brains of anyone who has a prime-time news entertainment show? you can disagree with her, but the woman is incredibly smart, and frequently has guests on who disagree with her -- please show me.

[2861U2]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

can we at least admit that Maddow has just about the best writing and research and brains of anyone who has a prime-time news entertainment show?

No. Sorry.

Here's what I posted in the "Honest Media" thread a while back:

Maddow is informed? Did you see her Friday night, in response to Olbermann's suspension, ripping on Fox News because Hannity has spoken at GOP fundraisers and because *gasp!* FNC allows politicians to promote their websites? Any research or honesty whatsoever would reveal that Ed Schultz has been the featured speaker at multiple Democratic fundraisers, and MSNBC also allows politicians to encourage website donations.

YouTube - Rachel Maddow Blasts Fox from her Glass House at MSNBC!

October 2010: Rachel Maddow lies saying that a Republican member of Congress got advanced notice that the Oklahoma City bombing was going to happen. When called out on it, she "apologized" in her typical sarcastic manner, seeming to mock the people who corrected her, apparently oblivious to the fact that there are some people who might get a little upset over the slight error of confusing "before the bombing" and "after the bombing."

Originally Posted by Irvine511

frequently has guests on who disagree with her.

Well that makes one person among her, Olby, Schultz, and O'Donnell. Even then, the number of opposing viewpoints on her show is far below the opposing viewpoints presented on O'Reilly, Hannity, or Greta.

I'll say it again- I find Maddow more obnoxious than even Olbermann. At least he's upfront about his hatred and bias. Maddow tries to mask it by being sarcastic and trying to act cute and silly.

If you can't truly find liberal, progressive perspectives on MSNBC outside Olbermann and Maddow, I'm simply baffled.

[BVS]

I love the lengths you go through to defend your baby... well actually you don't as much defend her as much as you point out the other network that's just as bad in order to change focus.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by 2861U2

If you can't truly find liberal, progressive perspectives on MSNBC outside Olbermann and Maddow, I'm simply baffled.

so you spent your post responding to an off-the-cuff aside of mine ... we can certainly agree to disagree on Madow.

what about your charge that all of MSNBC is as biased as all of Fox News?

further, none of this has anything to do with the study that wasn't about the networks but about the viewers of the networks, and how Fox News viewers believe lies.

[2861U2]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

what about your charge that all of MSNBC is as biased as all of Fox News?

further, none of this has anything to do with the study that wasn't about the networks but about the viewers of the networks, and how Fox News viewers believe lies.

What about the charge? I look at the amount of partisanship and political bias on a show like Special Report with Bret Baier at 6:00 (a hard news show featuring a panel segment with multiple perspectives) versus The Ed Schultz show on at the same time. Or the 7:00 Fox Report with Shepard Smith (hard news, no political pundits ever) versus Hardball. Or 8:00's O'Reilly (frequent debate) versus Olbermann (no debate whatsoever)...

My problem with the study is false correlations. If I asked someone who believes Obama wasn't born in America which of the cable networks they watch the most, I too would guess Fox News. But the study is implying that they would get such an idea from Fox News, which is just dishonest. As I've said, that point of view is not subscribed to by any major FNC personality. And again, the whole "healthcare won't add to the deficit" example presented as if it is a known fact is just stupid.

We could do this all day long. I bet most of the people who falsely believe that Palin actually said "I can see Russia from my house" watch MSNBC.

And BVS, Fox News is not "my baby." But I have a problem with people who proclaim that it is as right as right can be, but who act like MSNBC only leans slightly left, if at all. I'll accept people who say they are equally bad, but, sorry, the idea that FNC is worse is just not true. We'll never agree on that, I know.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by 2861U2

If I asked someone who believes Obama wasn't born in America which of the cable networks they watch the most, I too would guess Fox News.

Which in and of itself is reason for alarm...

[Irvine511]

both networks devote most of their newsday to reporting (over and over) the stories of the day. we have clear evidence of Fox News disseminating a slanted viewpoint to their staff. do you see evidence of MSNBC doing the same? you are only focusing on their Prime Time lineup, which is like comparing the editorial pages of a newspaper. i am talking about the actual REPORTING of the news on both stations, which on Fox has been demonstrated to be clearly, intentionally biased. it genuinely is a GOP propaganda machine.

one of the side effects of this is that the people who view Fox, as we now know, also don't know much about

I bet most of the people who falsely believe that Palin actually said "I can see Russia from my house" watch MSNBC.

well, no, probably not. anecdotes are just that, and when a study comes out that shows that MSNBC viewers are equally as misinformed as Fox viewers, then you might have a point. but until then, it's completely bogus to claim not only that the networks are the same thing but also that the viewers of each network are as deliberately misinformed.

FNC is absolutely worse. there really is no dispute here.

[LPU2]

I think they're both pretty much the same. MSNBC followed Fox's model and it worked. MSNBC's ratings have skyrocketed since they've more or less adopted a specific viewpoint.

It's actually the future of cable news...if not the future of all news. Get used to it. Gone are the days of the presumed unbiased anchor flatly reporting the news his editorial staff has deemed worthy of reporting.

We'll have a left channel and a right channel. Left newspapers and right newspapers. Fox/MSNBC, NY Times/Post, Boston Globe/Herald, Wash Post/Times are just the beginning.

I will say this, though. I think MSNBC simply wanted to fill a leftward void on primetime cable news, so they hired people with that viewpoint and let them do their thing. Fox's partisanship seems much more institutional. It's organized and strategic.

Plus, I don't care whether you're a republican, conservative, liberal or democrat, if you don't want to punch Glenn Beck in the face, there's something profoundly wrong with you.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by LPU2

I think they're both pretty much the same. MSNBC followed Fox's model and it worked. MSNBC's ratings have skyrocketed since they've more or less adopted a specific viewpoint.

good lord, no! what i am saying is that the REPORTING on Fox News is BIASED!!!!!!! clearly, intentionally, with very carefully chosen verbiage that has been focus-grouped to not only advance a viewpoint but to reinforce the worldview of their viewers who tune in to feel better about themselves. its both product and propaganda.

take the NY Times. are the opinions expressed by the paper in the op-ed section liberal? YES. does that mean the reporting is similarly biased in the way that, say, The Washington Times has reporting that is biased? NO.

it's the same with Fox and MSNBC. yes, in the PRIMETIME line up, it has become a pitting of Left vs. Right on the networks, but that does not mean that the REPORTING on MSNBC that goes on during the day has been slanted in the way that we know it has been slanted on Fox.

[2861U2]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

it's the same with Fox and MSNBC. yes, in the PRIMETIME line up, it has become a pitting of Left vs. Right on the networks, but that does not mean that the REPORTING on MSNBC that goes on during the day has been slanted in the way that we know it has been slanted on Fox.

I don't know what you want. The problem with MSNBC (and Fox, though to a lesser extent) is that it is difficult to tell when the daytime reporting ends and the primetime progressive cheerleading begins. I could argue that the latter begins as early as 4 with Dylan Ratigan. I want to know who at MSNBC "reports." Does Ratigan? Does Chuck Todd? Contessa Brewer? Frankly, I could make the case that none of them do. Give me personalities or time-slots that are fair-game and I'll gladly show you examples of bias.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by LPU2

Plus, I don't care whether you're a republican, conservative, liberal or democrat, if you don't want to punch Glenn Beck in the face, there's something profoundly wrong with you.

I would certainly tend to doubt the judgement of anyone who can't see that the man has psychological issues.

[Moonlit_Angel]

I like Rachel, too . I do agree, though, overall, that study's not a surprise-note both MSNBC and Fox were cited in it for contributing to some viewers' misinformation about certain topics. 2861U2 is right that most people who watch each channel likely already have their own preconceived biases about the other side or a particular topic or whatever, they probably got a lot of their "information"/bias elsewhere and those channels just happened to reinforce it. But the fact that those types of networks do reinforce it at all certainly doesn't help matters. They may not say those falsehoods straight out, but they have their own wordings that convey the message all the same.

(Also, despite the fact that I do watch MSNBC, I will say that I am not amongst those who believed Palin actually said that about Russia. I know she didn't)

Anywho, that's my two cents on the matter.

Originally Posted by corianderstem

Even when it changes over to the "true crime and prison shows" network at night?

(really not interested in the argument, I just think it's so funny how MSNBC airs those shows after they're done being newsy)

I gotta confess to watching some of the true crime shows on there .

And wholeheartedly agree on Glenn Beck. Guy's a nutcase and a half.

Angela

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by 2861U2

I don't know what you want. The problem with MSNBC (and Fox, though to a lesser extent) is that it is difficult to tell when the daytime reporting ends and the primetime progressive cheerleading begins. I could argue that the latter begins as early as 4 with Dylan Ratigan. I want to know who at MSNBC "reports." Does Ratigan? Does Chuck Todd? Contessa Brewer? Frankly, I could make the case that none of them do. Give me personalities or time-slots that are fair-game and I'll gladly show you examples of bias.

nice dodge.

i have nothing more to say on the topic. i await the report that shows that MSNBC viewers are as uninformed as the Fox audience.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by 2861U2

My problem with the study is false correlations. If I asked someone who believes Obama wasn't born in America which of the cable networks they watch the most, I too would guess Fox News. But the study is implying that they would get such an idea from Fox News, which is just dishonest.

So your argument is that stupid people are predisposed to watching FOX and/or that FOX caters to the stupid more than any other network?

[PhilsFan]

I usually say MSNBC is as biased as Fox just to get conservatives to talk to me. In reality Fox is way more biased than any other network and is a pure propaganda machine that wants nothing more than to confirm the fears of its unintelligent viewership. MSNBC is nowhere close to that. I just say it is so that I can continue discourse.

[LPU2]

Originally Posted by anitram

So your argument is that stupid people are predisposed to watching FOX and/or that FOX caters to the stupid more than any other network?

I'm not sure if that's what the quoted writer is saying, but I wouldn't have a problem saying that at all. In fact, I'll take it further. Fox also victimizes old people.

Y'know how televangelists prey on the sick and the old? Fox News isn't all that different. They know their audience.

[LPU2]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

I usually say MSNBC is as biased as Fox just to get conservatives to talk to me. In reality Fox is way more biased than any other network and is a pure propaganda machine that wants nothing more than to confirm the fears of its unintelligent viewership. MSNBC is nowhere close to that. I just say it is so that I can continue discourse.

I would agree that Fox is perhaps more organized in their bias, but they've been at it longer. And you'd never see a Fox morning show hosted by a liberal Democrat the way that MSNBC has a conservative republican host its flagship morning show.

BUT...look at what MSNBC has done to their primetime. Matthews, Keith, Rachel, Ed, Lawrence O'Donnell. Outside of Matthews, who's a fairly conservative Dem, the rest are lefties through and through. And Fox does have Shepherd Smith, who stands out as a beacon of sanity in the madness.

[PhilsFan]

The only sanity on Fox News is Bill O'Reilly on the days when he's interviewing Jon Stewart. That's it.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Heh, I'll agree with that. Those two do have a tendency to bring out the best in each other when they get together to chat. I've also seen Chris Wallace interviewed here and there, and based on what I've seen of him, he seems all right. I can deal with him okay.

Originally Posted by LPU2

Y'know how televangelists prey on the sick and the old? Fox News isn't all that different. They know their audience.

I said something similar some time back when discussing this with a friend.

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