Fox News is a welcome breath of fresh air in a media landscape dominated by leftwing partisan hacks. Some mainstream media channels, such as MSNBC, essentially serves the same function as the state run media in North Korea (KCNA), and that function is to facilitate the dissemination of leftist propaganda.
Not really, I agree that all news stations have some bias, but Fox News is much more so, going to the extent of cutting quotes short to twist their meaning, to interrupting any guest they might have that is not on the right side of politics. (while I have seen that on other stations, usually the person hosting tries to moderate and give everyone a chance to speak)
This isn't the first time a site cuts off access only to the iPad of iPhone.
YouTube actually has a setting you can set when you upload a video that denies access to the video to "mobile devices". It's the stupidest thing in the world and I want to punch whoever at Google gave uploaders the ability to do that.
All devices need to be treated the same. Apple really should add official user agent spoofing to Safari, and the Youtube app.
Not really, I agree that all news stations have some bias, but Fox News is much more so, going to the extent of cutting quotes short to twist their meaning, to interrupting any guest they might have that is not on the right side of politics. (while I have seen that on other stations, usually the person hosting tries to moderate and give everyone a chance to speak)
I haven't seen anyone better at trying to lead a guest to what he wants to be said than Chris Matthews. And cutting off those who don't say what he wants? He's the current King, dethroning Fox's Hannity at the end of the Bush era.
One plus in Fox's favor. If not for them, there are a lot of stories that I don't think would have seen the light of day. There's not any large right-leaning news organizations that I can think of. They provide some balance to MSNBC, ABC, NBC and most American newspapers (New York Times group of newspapers in particular)
I haven't seen anyone better at trying to lead a guest to what he wants to be said than Chris Matthews. And cutting off those who don't say what he wants? He's the current King, dethroning Fox's Hannity at the end of the Bush era.
One plus in Fox's favor. If not for them, there are a lot of stories that I don't think would have seen the light of day. There's not any large right-leaning news organizations that I can think of. They provide some balance to MSNBC, ABC, NBC and most American newspapers (New York Times group of newspapers in particular)
"Balance" isn't of value in news reporting, accuracy and truth are. So, the fact that they provide a right wing slant vs. other, more accurate, news outlets is not an argument in their favor. Fox is nothing more than a propaganda outlet for the right.
"Balance" isn't of value in news reporting, accuracy and truth are. So, the fact that they provide a right wing slant vs. other, more accurate, news outlets is not an argument in their favor. Fox is nothing more than a propaganda outlet for the right.
Of the ones you mentioned, only MSNBC intentionally has a political bias to the left, and, in their case, that's strictly a marketing decision, not an intent to promote a specific agenda, like Fox.
This isn't the first time a site cuts off access only to the iPad of iPhone.
YouTube actually has a setting you can set when you upload a video that denies access to the video to "mobile devices". It's the stupidest thing in the world and I want to punch whoever at Google gave uploaders the ability to do that.
All devices need to be treated the same. Apple really should add official user agent spoofing to Safari, and the Youtube app.
Google offers that because the ad revenue sharing from mobile devices is lower, or really, nonexistent because mobile youtube apps don't show ads, in phones, there's no way to add adds unless they put in a pre-roll. As unfortunate as that is, it's not a brand- or model-targeted block either, it's a block on the entire mobile device category.
It's also the death of paying one price for the entire Internet, too. When everything is applications instead of sites, you pay for every single site.
It's the opposite effect of being allowed to only pay for TV channels you want (cheaper that way); you'll be paying 10-20x as much for the 'appsites' you want than if the Internet would still exist.
Fox News is no more biased than any other major news source...
Fox News is a welcome breath of fresh air in a media landscape dominated by leftwing partisan hacks. Some mainstream media channels... facilitate the dissemination of leftist propaganda.
I have to call you out on that. I would have to assume you've not spent much time abroad. America doesn't have mandatory voting the only people who vote are those who feel most strongly about political issues. Since moderates tend not to vote they also tend not to actively pursue information about political issues which means that there is no market for news sources which do not assume their audience has a particular political affiliation.
Although it's presented in a news style format, FOX is definitely not "journalism in action". It is quite well known that Rupert Murdoch stipulates that "person x" is a threat to his assets so the command is issued that "person x" is to go down and the facts are engineered to sway popular opinion against that person. Not lies, just convenient half-truths or engineered phrases that paint a picture over time. There is certainly room for different interpretations of many events, but just because an opinion theoretically (or actually) exists doesn't mean it is equally valid, "balanced" or even worthy or airtime.
I think that conservatives have difficulty identifying the difference between genuinely biased media and media which is not biased but is not affiliated with their own bias. I suppose they look at the people around them and everyone they know seems to think the same way they do so they put themselves in the middle, when in reality they are often on the very fringe of the spectrum
A good indication about the quality of the news source is what ratio of the talking is done by the interviewer compared to the person they are interviewing. A good interviewer will simply ask probing questions and prompt for further information if they know that the interviewer is lying.
A recent analysis of a series of interviews on climate change conducted by a notorious talk back radio host in Australia found that, on the subject of climate change, when interviewing guests who offered an opinion that the host agreed with in principle the guest spoke for 70% of the conversation and the host for 30%. When interviewing guests who gave explanations that the host disagreed with in principle the guest was only allowed to speak for 40% of the time and the host spoke for 60% of the time.
This technique is also used by Rush Limbaugh.
The fact that the interviewer said more that the person they were interviewing says a lot but the matter went further than that. During the discussion the host threw out a barrage of numbers and percentages and figures to supposedly underpin his claims. After the figures quoted were later falsified (wrong by a factor of 100,000x mind you) it was claimed that they were simply a hyperbole?to make a point (which begs the question if the figures are not factual do you actually have a point worth making in the first place?).
I have to call you out on that. I would have to assume you've not spent much time abroad. America doesn't have mandatory voting the only people who vote are those who feel most strongly about political issues. Since moderates tend not to vote they also tend not to actively pursue information about political issues which means that there is no market for news sources which do not assume their audience has a particular political affiliation.
Although it's presented in a news style format, FOX is definitely not "journalism in action". It is quite well known that Rupert Murdoch stipulates that "person x" is a threat to his assets so the command is issued that "person x" is to go down and the facts are engineered to sway popular opinion against that person. Not lies, just convenient half-truths or engineered phrases that paint a picture over time. There is certainly room for different interpretations of many events, but just because an opinion theoretically (or actually) exists doesn't mean it is equally valid, "balanced" or even worthy or airtime.
I think that conservatives have difficulty identifying the difference between genuinely biased media and media which is not biased but is not affiliated with their own bias. I suppose they look at the people around them and everyone they know seems to think the same way they do so they put themselves in the middle, when in reality they are often on the very fringe of the spectrum
A good indication about the quality of the news source is what ratio of the talking is done by the interviewer compared to the person they are interviewing. A good interviewer will simply ask probing questions and prompt for further information if they know that the interviewer is lying.
A recent analysis of a series of interviews on climate change conducted by a notorious talk back radio host in Australia found that, on the subject of climate change, when interviewing guests who offered an opinion that the host agreed with in principle the guest spoke for 70% of the conversation and the host for 30%. When interviewing guests who gave explanations that the host disagreed with in principle the guest was only allowed to speak for 40% of the time and the host spoke for 60% of the time.
This technique is also used by Rush Limbaugh.
The fact that the interviewer said more that the person they were interviewing says a lot but the matter went further than that. During the discussion the host threw out a barrage of numbers and percentages and figures to supposedly underpin his claims. After the figures quoted were later falsified (wrong by a factor of 100,000x mind you) it was claimed that they were simply a hyperbole—to make a point (which begs the question if the figures are not factual do you actually have a point worth making in the first place?).
That is bias.
Here's a great little generally fair site to check your own personal favorite purveyor-of-the-truth for their honesty. I started with Rachel Maddow, but plug any name into the search box. Let me know when you find one that almost always tells the truth, even if it doesn't support their personal bias.
I suspect that the online subscription price is higher because they can't get as much ad revenue from online subscribers; the difference in price is to make up for that lost revenue.
Only a matter of time before they adjust the browser detect to also block the other IOS primary browsers.
For all those protesting - I would imagine many of you are the same crew of fanboy that joined in on the echo chamber of anti-Flash sentiment after Jobs & co decided it was a competitive tech to their App store / ITunes strategies. Effectively endorsing the restriction of a large proportion of web content to iPad users and at the same time beginning a trolling war to shout down its use by the rest of us.
The iPad itself is a paywall to Internet content that has been primarily free for a decade. Like it or not - its time to reap what you boys have sowed.
Like it or not, the New York Post is most certainly a newspaper and Fox News is most certainly a news station. There is no such thing as a completely unbiased news source and Fox News is no more biased than any other major news source. That includes much of the mainstream media and even news sources like the BBC, which some people incorrectly label as being unbiased. Everybody has their agenda, and that also includes certain comedy channels.
Fox News is a welcome breath of fresh air in a media landscape dominated by leftwing partisan hacks. Some mainstream media channels, such as MSNBC, essentially serves the same function as the state run media in North Korea (KCNA), and that function is to facilitate the dissemination of leftist propaganda.
The only people that like FAUX news are the ones that only want to hear right wing propaganda and do NOT want to hear anything that might challenge their preconceived notion of the world around them.
It is one thing to be a little bias one way or the other, but FAUX new is driving a right wing agenda and in my opinion is NOT a news channel...
The only people that like FAUX news are the ones that only want to hear right wing propaganda and do NOT want to hear anything that might challenge their preconceived notion of the world around them.
Sorry, but this applies to the vast majority of the world for their choices in media outlets, likely yourself included. Unless, of course, you enjoy watching Fox News because you want to hear your own preconceived notions of the world around you challenged.
Looks like they've only disabled Safari on the iPad, not the iPhone or iPod Touch.
Publishers like the NY Post just don't get it. If you're going to sell content on the iPad it needs to be for pennies not dollars and per issue or per article not per year. This is a non starter.
Comments
It's already happening with Apple's App Store.
Fox News is a welcome breath of fresh air in a media landscape dominated by leftwing partisan hacks. Some mainstream media channels, such as MSNBC, essentially serves the same function as the state run media in North Korea (KCNA), and that function is to facilitate the dissemination of leftist propaganda.
Not really, I agree that all news stations have some bias, but Fox News is much more so, going to the extent of cutting quotes short to twist their meaning, to interrupting any guest they might have that is not on the right side of politics. (while I have seen that on other stations, usually the person hosting tries to moderate and give everyone a chance to speak)
YouTube actually has a setting you can set when you upload a video that denies access to the video to "mobile devices". It's the stupidest thing in the world and I want to punch whoever at Google gave uploaders the ability to do that.
All devices need to be treated the same. Apple really should add official user agent spoofing to Safari, and the Youtube app.
Not really, I agree that all news stations have some bias, but Fox News is much more so, going to the extent of cutting quotes short to twist their meaning, to interrupting any guest they might have that is not on the right side of politics. (while I have seen that on other stations, usually the person hosting tries to moderate and give everyone a chance to speak)
I haven't seen anyone better at trying to lead a guest to what he wants to be said than Chris Matthews. And cutting off those who don't say what he wants? He's the current King, dethroning Fox's Hannity at the end of the Bush era.
One plus in Fox's favor. If not for them, there are a lot of stories that I don't think would have seen the light of day. There's not any large right-leaning news organizations that I can think of. They provide some balance to MSNBC, ABC, NBC and most American newspapers (New York Times group of newspapers in particular)
I haven't seen anyone better at trying to lead a guest to what he wants to be said than Chris Matthews. And cutting off those who don't say what he wants? He's the current King, dethroning Fox's Hannity at the end of the Bush era.
One plus in Fox's favor. If not for them, there are a lot of stories that I don't think would have seen the light of day. There's not any large right-leaning news organizations that I can think of. They provide some balance to MSNBC, ABC, NBC and most American newspapers (New York Times group of newspapers in particular)
"Balance" isn't of value in news reporting, accuracy and truth are. So, the fact that they provide a right wing slant vs. other, more accurate, news outlets is not an argument in their favor. Fox is nothing more than a propaganda outlet for the right.
"Balance" isn't of value in news reporting, accuracy and truth are. So, the fact that they provide a right wing slant vs. other, more accurate, news outlets is not an argument in their favor. Fox is nothing more than a propaganda outlet for the right.
Which one is the propaganda outlet for the left?
Which one is the propaganda outlet for the left?
Of the ones you mentioned, only MSNBC intentionally has a political bias to the left, and, in their case, that's strictly a marketing decision, not an intent to promote a specific agenda, like Fox.
This isn't the first time a site cuts off access only to the iPad of iPhone.
YouTube actually has a setting you can set when you upload a video that denies access to the video to "mobile devices". It's the stupidest thing in the world and I want to punch whoever at Google gave uploaders the ability to do that.
All devices need to be treated the same. Apple really should add official user agent spoofing to Safari, and the Youtube app.
Google offers that because the ad revenue sharing from mobile devices is lower, or really, nonexistent because mobile youtube apps don't show ads, in phones, there's no way to add adds unless they put in a pre-roll. As unfortunate as that is, it's not a brand- or model-targeted block either, it's a block on the entire mobile device category.
The beginning of the death of the WWW.
It's already happening with Apple's App Store.
It's also the death of paying one price for the entire Internet, too. When everything is applications instead of sites, you pay for every single site.
It's the opposite effect of being allowed to only pay for TV channels you want (cheaper that way); you'll be paying 10-20x as much for the 'appsites' you want than if the Internet would still exist.
Fox News is no more biased than any other major news source...
Fox News is a welcome breath of fresh air in a media landscape dominated by leftwing partisan hacks. Some mainstream media channels... facilitate the dissemination of leftist propaganda.
I have to call you out on that. I would have to assume you've not spent much time abroad. America doesn't have mandatory voting the only people who vote are those who feel most strongly about political issues. Since moderates tend not to vote they also tend not to actively pursue information about political issues which means that there is no market for news sources which do not assume their audience has a particular political affiliation.
Although it's presented in a news style format, FOX is definitely not "journalism in action". It is quite well known that Rupert Murdoch stipulates that "person x" is a threat to his assets so the command is issued that "person x" is to go down and the facts are engineered to sway popular opinion against that person. Not lies, just convenient half-truths or engineered phrases that paint a picture over time. There is certainly room for different interpretations of many events, but just because an opinion theoretically (or actually) exists doesn't mean it is equally valid, "balanced" or even worthy or airtime.
I think that conservatives have difficulty identifying the difference between genuinely biased media and media which is not biased but is not affiliated with their own bias. I suppose they look at the people around them and everyone they know seems to think the same way they do so they put themselves in the middle, when in reality they are often on the very fringe of the spectrum
A good indication about the quality of the news source is what ratio of the talking is done by the interviewer compared to the person they are interviewing. A good interviewer will simply ask probing questions and prompt for further information if they know that the interviewer is lying.
A recent analysis of a series of interviews on climate change conducted by a notorious talk back radio host in Australia found that, on the subject of climate change, when interviewing guests who offered an opinion that the host agreed with in principle the guest spoke for 70% of the conversation and the host for 30%. When interviewing guests who gave explanations that the host disagreed with in principle the guest was only allowed to speak for 40% of the time and the host spoke for 60% of the time.
This technique is also used by Rush Limbaugh.
The fact that the interviewer said more that the person they were interviewing says a lot but the matter went further than that. During the discussion the host threw out a barrage of numbers and percentages and figures to supposedly underpin his claims. After the figures quoted were later falsified (wrong by a factor of 100,000x mind you) it was claimed that they were simply a hyperbole?to make a point (which begs the question if the figures are not factual do you actually have a point worth making in the first place?).
That is bias.
I have to call you out on that. I would have to assume you've not spent much time abroad. America doesn't have mandatory voting the only people who vote are those who feel most strongly about political issues. Since moderates tend not to vote they also tend not to actively pursue information about political issues which means that there is no market for news sources which do not assume their audience has a particular political affiliation.
Although it's presented in a news style format, FOX is definitely not "journalism in action". It is quite well known that Rupert Murdoch stipulates that "person x" is a threat to his assets so the command is issued that "person x" is to go down and the facts are engineered to sway popular opinion against that person. Not lies, just convenient half-truths or engineered phrases that paint a picture over time. There is certainly room for different interpretations of many events, but just because an opinion theoretically (or actually) exists doesn't mean it is equally valid, "balanced" or even worthy or airtime.
I think that conservatives have difficulty identifying the difference between genuinely biased media and media which is not biased but is not affiliated with their own bias. I suppose they look at the people around them and everyone they know seems to think the same way they do so they put themselves in the middle, when in reality they are often on the very fringe of the spectrum
A good indication about the quality of the news source is what ratio of the talking is done by the interviewer compared to the person they are interviewing. A good interviewer will simply ask probing questions and prompt for further information if they know that the interviewer is lying.
A recent analysis of a series of interviews on climate change conducted by a notorious talk back radio host in Australia found that, on the subject of climate change, when interviewing guests who offered an opinion that the host agreed with in principle the guest spoke for 70% of the conversation and the host for 30%. When interviewing guests who gave explanations that the host disagreed with in principle the guest was only allowed to speak for 40% of the time and the host spoke for 60% of the time.
This technique is also used by Rush Limbaugh.
The fact that the interviewer said more that the person they were interviewing says a lot but the matter went further than that. During the discussion the host threw out a barrage of numbers and percentages and figures to supposedly underpin his claims. After the figures quoted were later falsified (wrong by a factor of 100,000x mind you) it was claimed that they were simply a hyperbole—to make a point (which begs the question if the figures are not factual do you actually have a point worth making in the first place?).
That is bias.
Here's a great little generally fair site to check your own personal favorite purveyor-of-the-truth for their honesty. I started with Rachel Maddow, but plug any name into the search box. Let me know when you find one that almost always tells the truth, even if it doesn't support their personal bias.
http://www.politifact.com/search/?q=maddow
I noticed that, too. They have the pricing right.
I suspect that the online subscription price is higher because they can't get as much ad revenue from online subscribers; the difference in price is to make up for that lost revenue.
Opera Mini: Pulls up the mobile version of NYPost.com
Perfect Browser, Skyfire, or Atomic Web: Pulls up desktop version of NYPost.com if you change settings for Desktop rendering
Sorry - off topic but store is down. Odd for a sunday?
Ah, it's back up. I think they added "Government Store" and "International Stores". Also, the layout is broken on Safari 5.x on Windows 7.
As for using other browsers:
Opera Mini: Pulls up the mobile version of NYPost.com
Perfect Browser, Skyfire, or Atomic Web: Pulls up desktop version of NYPost.com if you change settings for Desktop rendering
Atomic Web makes my iPad a web browsing BEAST! Can't recommend it enough. Especially with more memory on the iPad 2.
For all those protesting - I would imagine many of you are the same crew of fanboy that joined in on the echo chamber of anti-Flash sentiment after Jobs & co decided it was a competitive tech to their App store / ITunes strategies. Effectively endorsing the restriction of a large proportion of web content to iPad users and at the same time beginning a trolling war to shout down its use by the rest of us.
The iPad itself is a paywall to Internet content that has been primarily free for a decade. Like it or not - its time to reap what you boys have sowed.
- Koof
Ah, it's back up. I think they added "Government Store" and "International Stores".
Been there since the Store was created...
Like it or not, the New York Post is most certainly a newspaper and Fox News is most certainly a news station. There is no such thing as a completely unbiased news source and Fox News is no more biased than any other major news source. That includes much of the mainstream media and even news sources like the BBC, which some people incorrectly label as being unbiased. Everybody has their agenda, and that also includes certain comedy channels.
Fox News is a welcome breath of fresh air in a media landscape dominated by leftwing partisan hacks. Some mainstream media channels, such as MSNBC, essentially serves the same function as the state run media in North Korea (KCNA), and that function is to facilitate the dissemination of leftist propaganda.
The only people that like FAUX news are the ones that only want to hear right wing propaganda and do NOT want to hear anything that might challenge their preconceived notion of the world around them.
It is one thing to be a little bias one way or the other, but FAUX new is driving a right wing agenda and in my opinion is NOT a news channel...
For the record, I despise both parties...
The only people that like FAUX news are the ones that only want to hear right wing propaganda and do NOT want to hear anything that might challenge their preconceived notion of the world around them.
Sorry, but this applies to the vast majority of the world for their choices in media outlets, likely yourself included. Unless, of course, you enjoy watching Fox News because you want to hear your own preconceived notions of the world around you challenged.
Publishers like the NY Post just don't get it. If you're going to sell content on the iPad it needs to be for pennies not dollars and per issue or per article not per year. This is a non starter.