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.
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.

Actually its pretty easy. One has opposition on the show while the other has no opposition on the show. The difference is pretty clear.
 
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.

I know Fox is slanted toward the right, but in recent years, MSNBC has become more biased than even Fox. The fact remains, MSNBC has in their 8:00 hour, a person that never has any opposition at all on the show. Its probably the most watched hour on MSNBC, and thats why it matters.
 
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....

The overwhelming majority of Republicans do not believe the propaganda you just listed, although it is true that there are some things that are similar about Kennedy and Reagan.

In my opinion the media is often either ignorant or biased on their news coverage of events, especially those occuring overseas or having to do with the military. I don't remember how accurate it is, but I do remember a poll taking in the 1980s that showed that 88% of journalist were registered democrats. If that is the case, it would only be natural that there would be at least some bias towards the left.
 
The overwhelming majority of Republicans do not believe the propaganda you just listed, although it is true that there are some things that are similar about Kennedy and Reagan.

In my opinion the media is often either ignorant or biased on their news coverage of events, especially those occuring overseas or having to do with the military. I don't remember how accurate it is, but I do remember a poll taking in the 1980s that showed that 88% of journalist were registered democrats. If that is the case, it would only be natural that there would be at least some bias towards the left.



and yet, here you are buying the propaganda that the media *must* somehow be biased.

you've proven nothing other than that there's one personality-driven entertainment show on one channel that has differences with another personality-driven entertainment show on another channel.

why do you think that Fox News viewers are so ignorant?
 
and yet, here you are buying the propaganda that the media *must* somehow be biased.

I said ignorant or biased and thats based on my own observation.

you've proven nothing other than that there's one personality-driven entertainment show on one channel that has differences with another personality-driven entertainment show on another channel.

Wait, one allows the opposition to speak while the other does not. Thats a stark difference. I don't think you can demonstrate a better example of overwhelming bias than that.

MSNBC knows this is their biggest hour for public viewing and this is what they choose to dump on the public.

why do you think that Fox News viewers are so ignorant?

Wait, where is your proof that Fox viewers are so ignorant?

At least the majority of the public that watches Fox sees a show where alternative view points are expressed and argued, while during MSNBC's golden hour you only get one side of the story and no opposition.

I would say based on that you might conclude Fox viewers would be a little more informed.
 
I said ignorant or biased and thats based on my own observation.

oh, well, then there's not much to discuss.



Wait, one allows the opposition to speak while the other does not. Thats a stark difference. I don't think you can demonstrate a better example of overwhelming bias than that.

MSNBC knows this is their biggest hour for public viewing and this is what they choose to dump on the public.


yes, because the MSNBC bosses choose their lineup based upon their own political convictions, and not based on ratings. it's a business, and if Olbermann weren't drawing in the viewers, he'd be gone. he is.




Wait, where is your proof that Fox viewers are so ignorant?


the UMD study that we've been talking about for the past 5 pages or so. the one that shows that viewers of Fox News believe lies.





At least the majority of the public that watches Fox sees a show where alternative view points are expressed and argued, while during MSNBC's golden hour you only get one side of the story and no opposition.


if you're claiming that Olbermann is more "biased" than O'Reilly, i might be inclined to agree with you. but you seem to think that, somehow, this stands in for the entire network, and keep repeating this as if it has any relevance or bearing whatsoever as to what's being discussed in here.

we do not see on MSNBC the direct, clear links in the framing of the issues between Fox News and the GOP.

we do not see MSNBC make donations of a similar size and scale of Fox to the GOP.

we do not see the demonstrable ignorance in the MSNBC audience that we do in the Fox audience.



the major difference is that Fox acts as a propaganda arm of the GOP, and MSNBC has a business model that strives to shore up the other end of the market for liberal viewers who want combative hosts delivering to them news that feels good. while MSNBC may have stolen their model, it does not follow marching orders from the DNC (or the White House) in the way that Fox follows orders from the GOP.

and MSNBC has smarter viewers than Fox. so it seems clear that while their hosts may be biased, they are not peddling deliberate lies and misinformation or playing into non-truths (i.e., Obama and his birth certificate, the Black Panther freak-out back in October).
 
Actually its pretty easy. One has opposition on the show while the other has no opposition on the show. The difference is pretty clear.
This really is a shitty yardstick you're using. These two shows are different formats, and neither are news. The quicker you understand that, the better.

The overwhelming majority of Republicans do not believe the propaganda you just listed

Maybe not Republicans but I'd be willing to bet 95% of tea partiers do. For all their talking heads Rush, Hannity, Beck, etc believe each and every one of these... so I would say quite a few Republicans believe it as well.
 
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

Oy...:doh: :banghead:. MrsSpringsteen, I fully agree, that's an awesome comment (and yay to the others who are laughing at the article, too) :up:. Good god, people, seriously...

Angela
 
Hey, guess what? Straight troops have already been showering with gays for years! I wonder if anyone get infected with "the gay" as a result. :hmm:


I mean, honestly, this is the angle they're going with? It's like they're not even bothering to put on the facade of responsible journalism.
 
I just Googled Fox Nation, and it's attached to the Fox News site.

"Welcome to FOX Nation, a new community where all Americans are encouraged to share, discuss, and debate. Yes, FOX Nation is here for you, the American people: your views, your values, your voice.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,511334,00.html#ixzz18n5Gy4Jd"

Barf.
 
Hey, guess what? Straight troops have already been showering with gays for years! I wonder if anyone get infected with "the gay" as a result. :hmm:


I mean, honestly, this is the angle they're going with? It's like they're not even bothering to put on the facade of responsible journalism.

I've been communally showering with gay guys at my YWCA for 10 years now. Hasn't infected me yet.
Maybe it takes 11 years? Or maybe it takes daily exposure since I only go to my gym 3-4 times per week?

:hmm: I guess we'll see eventually.




:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I know Fox is slanted toward the right, but in recent years, MSNBC has become more biased than even Fox. The fact remains, MSNBC has in their 8:00 hour, a person that never has any opposition at all on the show. Its probably the most watched hour on MSNBC, and thats why it matters.
You didn't read my post. At all. I'm not going to discuss this with you unless you actually read and respond to what I say.
 
Wait, one allows the opposition to speak while the other does not. Thats a stark difference. I don't think you can demonstrate a better example of overwhelming bias than that.
There are literally scores of ways of demonstrating bias better than that. The most important one being that you're talking about commentary and not the hard news, which is the big problem people like Irvine and I are trying to address. It's also the point you are completely and totally ignoring.
 
That's not as bad as this:

cover_fake.jpg


CBS Airs Hoax Cover of Bush Memoir - FoxNews.com

CBS News aired a fake cover of former President George W. Bush's memoir over the weekend, after a staffer apparently got duped by a hoax image floating around the Internet.

The image of the faux cover, along with that of several other genuine book covers, was flashed on screen for a fraction of a second during the introduction to a feature package Sunday about how book covers are designed.

The title of the Bush book read: "Desision Points ... How I Managed to Go Eight Years Without Making One Good Decision."

Save for the title and subtitle, the cover image looked similar to that of the real book, "Decision Points."

CBS issued a statement acknowledging it made a "mistake," saying nobody could see it "because you'd have to freeze the frame to notice it."

"Clearly we have to be more careful when downloading material," CBS said, calling the incident a "cautionary tale" about the risks of Internet content.


:rolleyes: No "sorry, Bush family." No "sorry, viewers of ours who expect a better job of reporting." Instead we get a half-assed "let this be a lesson, though, let's be fair, nobody probably even saw it." Who does CBS learn its manner of apologizing from? Rachel Maddow?
 
Yeah, that's pretty piss-poor as well, although that seems like an unnecessary jab rather than just a really disgusting mistake (which I'm hoping the Elie Wiesel thing was - I don't even want to consider that it was someone doing it as a joke).

Wasn't there a network that used a fake cover of the Palin book, too?
 
Isn't Shepherd Smith known for being rather reasonable even by the usual lefties? So it's not so surprising coming from him.

but nice to see someone at Fox bringing it up.
 
Isn't Shepherd Smith known for being rather reasonable even by the usual lefties? So it's not so surprising coming from him.

but nice to see someone at Fox bringing it up.

Yeah, he actually seems pretty reasonable, but also to no suprise Fox gets a lot of email saying he doesn't belong on their network.
 
the UMD study that we've been talking about for the past 5 pages or so. the one that shows that viewers of Fox News believe lies.

Well, not every study that is done is accurate. I find it a bit strange that your so eager to classify millions of people a certain way based on one study that sampled only a fraction of the people that watch the network.


if you're claiming that Olbermann is more "biased" than O'Reilly, i might be inclined to agree with you. but you seem to think that, somehow, this stands in for the entire network, and keep repeating this as if it has any relevance or bearing whatsoever as to what's being discussed in here.

Well, its certainly a more accurate assessment than a study done on a small fraction of people that watch the Fox network.


we do not see on MSNBC the direct, clear links in the framing of the issues between Fox News and the GOP.

we do not see MSNBC make donations of a similar size and scale of Fox to the GOP.

we do not see the demonstrable ignorance in the MSNBC audience that we do in the Fox audience.

1. This is debatable

2. You have a point here.

3. I thought the "study" only involved Fox news? If you only watched Chris, Keith and Rachel, you would indeed be ignorant on on certain aspects of several issues.

the major difference is that Fox acts as a propaganda arm of the GOP, and MSNBC has a business model that strives to shore up the other end of the market for liberal viewers who want combative hosts delivering to them news that feels good. while MSNBC may have stolen their model, it does not follow marching orders from the DNC (or the White House) in the way that Fox follows orders from the GOP.

MSNBC used to be a good news channel. But in my opinion, its more biased than even Fox now.

and MSNBC has smarter viewers than Fox. so it seems clear that while their hosts may be biased, they are not peddling deliberate lies and misinformation or playing into non-truths (i.e., Obama and his birth certificate, the Black Panther freak-out back in October

I seriously doubt the viewers of either channel or CNN are smarter than the other. To peddle that view or conduct a study attempting to show that either way indeed shows some serious political bias. "They are dumb, and we are smart". LOL Thats what all political extremist like to believe.
 
This really is a shitty yardstick you're using. These two shows are different formats, and neither are news. The quicker you understand that, the better.

Both involve the news on news channels. The difference between the two shows boils down to the fact that one has opposition views and the other does not. Both shows are the most widely watched shows on both networks. Whats your yardstick?
 
Wow. I've been to Canada, Italy and Australia, and none of these countries have all these "talking heads" shows.:ohmy:
 
Wow. I've been to Canada, Italy and Australia, and none of these countries have all these "talking heads" shows.:ohmy:

Interesting :hmm:

Makes me wonder... would the Tea Party even exist without the conservative talking heads?

It truly would be a different America without them.

One can only dream :love:
 
Makes me wonder... would the Tea Party even exist without the conservative talking heads?

Obviously, no.:lol:

Radio and cable TV are fuel to the fire.

But don't quote me on what I just stated. The only news that I was able to watch in other countries came out of the TV's in my hotel rooms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom