That means nothing. I could say the same thing about you providing claims without evidence. Are you saying that because Fox has run two Democratic debates they're not conservative?
I also asked how many the other news channels ran. It shows intent to give time to the Democrats ideas. How many unedited Democratic debates has Limbaugh run for instance on his show? Likewise it was run with no one spinning over it. I often turn to CSPAN or some other channel if there is something like a speech I wish to watch or see because I get so sick of people talking over speakers trying to point the information before it even reaches my ears.
Quote:
And other news organizations don't provide links? Come on. For someone who claims not to watch Fox you seem to know a lot about them.
First how would providing web links show I watch a show?!? That is honestly the strangest assertion I have read today. I said I like the layout of the website and the extra information it provides.
You will notice on the Fox story that whenever you are going through reading and encounter names, of relevent information it has links to searches it will generate including other stories from Fox, Dogpile, Google, etc. A nice example in there is it mentions a disagreement about the Clean Air Act and a lawsuit relating to it. One click and I have a lot more information about it. CNN doesn't do this. It doesn't mean CNN is bad or biased, just that I like having more information on a topic available and Fox makes it available.
Now take a look at the actual reported stories.
Notice that CNN never takes time to mention the results of the actual confirmation vote. It also labels him a conservative Republican that is assailed by environmental groups.
The Fox story mentions the actual results of the vote, 88-8. This would indicate support of not only Republicans as the CNN story would attempt to portray. Obviously it would indicate support of quite a few Democrats as well. Since it is Bushes' nominee, they actually quote his views on it. It also gives time to those who supported the nomination and those who had questions about it.
I simply find more information available in the Fox story in this instance. It offers more information and doesn't attempt to influence my thinking about this nominee. I don't feel the same way about the CNN story since it withholds a lot of information and doesn't give me any other sources to get more information.
Quote:
I originally saw the article on MSNBC a few weeks ago but I'm too lazy to look for it. A quick Google found that one and many others about the study.
Maybe you should answer these questions. Is Murdoch a liberal? Are most of the personalities with shows on Fox liberal? It's not that difficult.
That shows what the viewers believe, but not how the reporting may have created that view. If you have a link to a study that shows for example Fox news mentioning that they intentionally obscured that information then I will be happy to look at it. It could also indicate bias in the reporting of the other channels much like I showed in the articles I listed above. Where a normal news story doesn't give much information but instead becomes a forums for critics to re-emphasize their talking points again.
Is Murdoch a liberal? I would likely say not from what I have gleamed. However I don't know his party registration. Are the personalities of the Fox News shows liberal? I don't know since I don't watch them. I do not that Greta use to be on CNN. So CNN must be a conservative mouth piece right? Hannity and Colmes has two views but Colmes is accused of being wimpy. (I know this from the Franken book in which he also challenges someone to a fight for claiming the same thing about Democrats) Bill O'Reily, I couldn't say since I have never watched his show.
So now reverse the same question. Larry King, liberal or conservative? He was even involved with dreaded talk radio. Paula Zahn, a former FoxNews employee, what is she? How about Bill Press, James Carville, and Paul Begala?
There's something wrong with a liberal talk show posing as a liberal talk show, but there is nothing wrong with a non-objective news outlet posing as an objective one?
Truly warped sense of logic, trumptman.
It turns out that Democratic lawmakers and not the party are raising money for the show. I was mistaken in thinking otherwise. That would just about confirm there being nothing wrong with the Ed Schultz radio program as an alternative to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, et al.
We're not talking objectivity at all here. No one is claiming objectivity! The whole purpose of the show is to frame and interpret issues in liberal terms! That's what it's there for!
What's. Wrong. With. That?
Very little, but I am glad I can satisfy your seeming insatiable appetite for arguing with people over basically nothing.
Liberal News = Bad, degenerative, dishonest, communist.
For anyone to argue that there is NOT a massive conservative monopoly of the AM radio airwaves is being both disingenuous and deceptive. Their fist waving right now is based on a fear that they may have to share the airwaves (assuming the show is successful).
Rush Limbaugh may not have been funded "directly" by the RNC, but Roger Ailes sure did his best to make sure he and Rush ended up massive millionaires. Roger Ailes NOW RUNS FOX NEWS! If Terry McAuliffe or Podesta became the head of CNN conservatives would eat them alive!
The point is not the method in which to get the process started, but to reach some semblance of parity...at whatever cost. Conservative watch-dog groups have succeeded extraordinarily well in convincing Americans that there is a "liberal media" and that they can't be trusted. Because of this successful campaign, media outlets like CNN go out of their way to not appear liberal exemplified by their sudden need to show stories of schools re-opening in Baghdad. There were FOUR students in the classroom. FOUR! But, it was front and center for a considerable amount of time on CNN. Yeah, liberal my ass!
To make a direct point about this topic - I would further argue that even if every liberal on these boards complains about Fox News and the massive conservative radio talk show circuit, it doesn't immediately neuter them from supporting a similarly formatted show for themselves.
Trumpt's argument is that if you complain about the conservative media, you therefore cannot support a liberal outlet. See, this is very clever arguing here. It's logic is designed to prevent liberals from creating a similar venue so that the conservative venues can remain unchallenged. Once you challenge it, which they eagerly await for you to do, then they furiously call you a hypocrite, waive their fists about, cry foul...and then go about their business of spreading "the good word".
The net result is hours and hours every morning being filled by conservative ideology compared to, say, the 30 second sound bites from Tom Brokaw or Peter Jennings on the evening news. And here's the kicker, the evening news is TRYING to NOT be liberal. The conservative media doesn't even apologize for its partisan rhetoric.
Again, numerous conservative talk shows = good. One liberal talk show = bad.
Heck, even the thread's title "so much for objectivity" is inflammatory. This is another classic example of conservative "framing". The word objective here implies that the alternative to a conservative talk show is unobjective. This further implies that conservative talk shows like Limbaugh's, Hannity's, et al, are objective, which is absurd of course. I'll even take it further by implying that it is noble for conservatives to preach to their choir, but liberals must be muzzled from doing the same.
A true liberal, however, will tell you that Rush has every right to broadcast his show. And a true liberal will also tell you that a liberal has the right to similar broadcasting which serves his interests too. The anger and frustration gets roused when Rush and the folks like him start "bullying" their position into the forefront while "defaming" alternative opinions futher convincing his listeners that ANY liberal ideology WILL DESTROY YOUR WAY OF LIFE!
Purely out of interest (having given up hope of objectivity with you), how would YOU describe Fox?
Liberal, neutral or conservative?
Oh, and NEVER call me liberal unless you can supply a report or a study that proves it.
Did I call you liberal? I believe I said you believe what fits your politics.
Likewise it is sad that you think of yourself as a large organization. Perhaps you should start referring to yourself in the third person or call yourself Harald Inc.
There's something wrong with a liberal talk show posing as a liberal talk show, but there is nothing wrong with a non-objective news outlet posing as an objective one?
Truly warped sense of logic, trumptman.
It turns out that Democratic lawmakers and not the party are raising money for the show. I was mistaken in thinking otherwise. That would just about confirm there being nothing wrong with the Ed Schultz radio program as an alternative to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, et al.
We're not talking objectivity at all here. No one is claiming objectivity! The whole purpose of the show is to frame and interpret issues in liberal terms! That's what it's there for!
What's. Wrong. With. That?
Very little, but I am glad I can satisfy your seeming insatiable appetite for arguing with people over basically nothing.
Oh gee, I'm so sorry for the mistake. I mean obviously Ed Schultz should be considered the same as Fox News of Rush. I mean sure I don't recall either Rush or Fox News having fundraisers for them by the RNC or Republican lawmakers, but what the heck lets compare apples to oranges because Shawn can't see the difference.
There is nothing wrong with the show being liberal. Please point to where I said the show cannot be liberal. You are arguing a point no one has said anything against. I have questioned whether it is appropriate for a party to start and OWN the mechanism by which the news is reported. The Republican party does not own Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.
Of course you can't see the difference between the two though, since ideology has blinded you.
My point is that it is funded propaganda that will pose as a regular talk show. It's clear you don't mind propaganda as long as it promotes what you prefer to hear.
Fox News has been declared conservative by you and others. I haven't read a study that showed say the number of favorable vs. unfavorable stories on say Republican vs. Democratic issues.
I think it would be hard to quantify whether a report was truly slanted one way or the other, but one study looked at Fox's guests. To summarize, CNN is tilted slightly in favor of having conservative and Republican guests, and Fox is massively tilted to conservatives and Republicans.
Quote:
The numbers show an overwhelming slant on Fox towards both Republicans and conservatives. Of the 56 partisan guests on Special Report between January and May, 50 were Republicans and six were Democrats -- a greater than 8 to 1 imbalance. In other words, 89 percent of guests with a party affiliation were Republicans.
On Special Report, 65 of the 92 guests (71 percent) were avowed conservatives--that is, conservatives outnumbered representatives of all other points of view, including non-political guests, by a factor of more than 2 to 1. While FAIR did not break down the non-conservative guests by ideology, there were few avowed liberals or progressives among the small non-conservative minority; instead, there was a heavy emphasis on centrist and center-right pundits (David Gergen, Norman Ornstein, Lou Dobbs) and politicians (Sen. John Breaux, Sen. Bob Graham, Rep. Christopher Shays).
As a comparison, FAIR also studied the one-on-one newsmaker interviews on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reportsover the same time period, and found a modest but significant tilt towards Republicans, and a disproportionate minority of guests who were conservatives--but in both cases, there was far more balance than was found onSpecial Report.
Of Blitzer's 67 partisan guests, 38 were Republicans and 29 were Democrats -- a 57 percent to 43 percent split in favor of Republicans. Thirty-five out of 109 guests (32 percent) were avowed conservatives, with the remaining 68 percent divided up among the rest of the political spectrum, from center-right to left.
Only eight of Special Report's 92 guests during the study period were women, and only six were people of color -- making for a guest list that was 91 percent male and 93 percent white. Wolf Blitzer Reports was hardly a model of diversity either; its guests were 86 percent male and 93 percent white.
Special Report's guests who were women or people of color were strikingly homogenous in ideology. Seven of the show's eight female guests were either conservative or Republican, although women in general tend to be less conservative and more Democratic than men. Although African-Americans and Latinos show an even more pronounced progressive tilt, five of six people of color appearing on the show were either conservative or Republican; the sixth was an Iraqi opposition leader championed by congressional Republicans. (On Wolf Blitzer Reports, nine of 15 female guests were conservative or Republican; four out of five of the show's American guests who were people of color were non-conservative.)
What's amusing to me is that the liberal bias that Republicans whine about is very subtle. "Did you see the way Dan Rather twitched his eyebrow when he mentioned George Bush!" On the other hand, the conservative media bias on talk-radio, for example, is so blatant and extreme that Limbaugh spends hours and hours, every day, doing absolutely nothing but bashing liberals and promoting conservatives in the most stark terms. And the conservatives are the ones whining!
Liberal News = Bad, degenerative, dishonest, communist.
For anyone to argue that there is NOT a massive conservative monopoly of the AM radio airwaves is being both disingenuous and deceptive. Their fist waving right now is based on a fear that they may have to share the airwaves (assuming the show is successful).
Rush Limbaugh may not have been funded "directly" by the RNC, but Roger Ailes sure did his best to make sure he and Rush ended up massive millionaires. Roger Ailes NOW RUNS FOX NEWS! If Terry McAuliffe or Podesta became the head of CNN conservatives would eat them alive!
The point is not the method in which to get the process started, but to reach some semblance of parity...at whatever cost. Conservative watch-dog groups have succeeded extraordinarily well in convincing Americans that there is a "liberal media" and that they can't be trusted. Because of this successful campaign, media outlets like CNN go out of their way to not appear liberal exemplified by their sudden need to show stories of schools re-opening in Baghdad. There were FOUR students in the classroom. FOUR! But, it was front and center for a considerable amount of time on CNN. Yeah, liberal my ass!
Boy you sure enjoy setting up those straw men and knocking them down. Keeping railing against the points no one has made or argued against!
I did not say it was wrong for a source to be liberal or conservative. I didn't say it was wrong for a person to be liberal or conservative. I didn't even say it was wrong for a medium to be conservative.
I said do you think it right for a party to create what is supposed to be a seperate organization. Regardless of the orientation of that organization.
Example:
Al Franken has made boatloads of money from his N.Y. Times Best Seller, Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them. He decides to create a liberal talk show network that will syndicate the best liberal talk show hosts from around the nation. The company will package the shows together and save a lot of work for small AM station owners who can buy the programming for less than it would cost to create themselves.
This in my mind would be just fine. Fantastic, wonderful and two adjectives to be named in the draft next season.
Would it be appropriate for the Repubican Party to fund raise and create a seperate non-private organization to counter what Franken is doing? Sure Franken is liberal and the Republican's conservative. That isn't the point. The point is that is it fair for political parties to use the political process and fund raising to create organizations that fight private companies. I don't care what side of the political spectrum it is on.
I said do you think it right for a party to create what is supposed to be a seperate organization. Regardless of the orientation of that organization.
Yes.
A party is free to establish new forms of marketing avenues similar to the way RNC pollster Frank Luntz has done by putting out 500-page manuals every year that goes issue by issue on what the logic of the position is from the Republican side, what the other guys' logic is, how to attack it, and what language to use.
From CHARLIE REINA: So Chris Wallace says Fox News Channel really is fair and balanced. Well, I guess that settles it. We can all go home now. I mean, so what if Wallace's salary as Fox's newest big-name anchor ends with a whole lot of zeroes? So what if he hasn't spent a day in the FNC newsroom yet?
My advice to the pundits: If you really want to know about bias at Fox, talk to the grunts who work there - the desk assistants, tape editors, writers, researchers and assorted producers who have to deal with it every day. Ask enough of them what goes on, promise them anonymity, and you'll get the real story.
The fact is, daily life at FNC is all about management politics. I say this having served six years there - as producer of the media criticism show, News Watch, as a writer/producer of specials and (for the last year of my stay) as a newsroom copy editor. Not once in the 20+ years I had worked in broadcast journalism prior to Fox - including lengthy stays at The Associated Press, CBS Radio and ABC/Good Morning America - did I feel any pressure to toe a management line. But at Fox, if my boss wasn't warning me to "be careful" how I handled the writing of a special about Ronald Reagan ("You know how Roger [Fox News Chairman Ailes] feels about him."), he was telling me how the environmental special I was to produce should lean ("You can give both sides, but make sure the pro-environmentalists don't get the last word.")
Editorially, the FNC newsroom is under the constant control and vigilance of management. The pressure ranges from subtle to direct. First of all, it's a news network run by one of the most high-profile political operatives of recent times. Everyone there understands that FNC is, to a large extent, "Roger's Revenge" - against what he considers a liberal, pro-Democrat media establishment that has shunned him for decades. For the staffers, many of whom are too young to have come up through the ranks of objective journalism, and all of whom are non-union, with no protections regarding what they can be made to do, there is undue motivation to please the big boss.
Sometimes, this eagerness to serve Fox's ideological interests goes even beyond what management expects. For example, in June of last year, when a California judge ruled the Pledge of Allegiance's "Under God" wording unconstitutional, FNC's newsroom chief ordered the judge's mailing address and phone number put on the screen. The anchor, reading from the Teleprompter, found himself explaining that Fox was taking this unusual step so viewers could go directly to the judge and get "as much information as possible" about his decision. To their credit, the big bosses recognized that their underling's transparent attempt to serve their political interests might well threaten the judge's physical safety and ordered the offending information removed from the screen as soon as they saw it. A few months later, this same eager-to-please newsroom chief ordered the removal of a graphic quoting UN weapons inspector Hans Blix as saying his team had not yet found WMDs in Iraq. Fortunately, the electronic equipment was quicker on the uptake (and less susceptible to office politics) than the toady and displayed the graphic before his order could be obeyed.
But the roots of FNC's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it.
The Memo was born with the Bush administration, early in 2001, and, intentionally or not, has ensured that the administration's point of view consistently comes across on FNC. This year, of course, the war in Iraq became a constant subject of The Memo. But along with the obvious - information on who is where and what they'll be covering - there have been subtle hints as to the tone of the anchors' copy. For instance, from the March 20th memo: "There is something utterly incomprehensible about Kofi Annan's remarks in which he allows that his thoughts are 'with the Iraqi people.' One could ask where those thoughts were during the 23 years Saddam Hussein was brutalizing those same Iraqis. Food for thought." Can there be any doubt that the memo was offering not only "food for thought," but a direction for the FNC writers and anchors to go? Especially after describing the U.N. Secretary General's remarks as "utterly incomprehensible"?
The sad truth is, such subtlety is often all it takes to send Fox's newsroom personnel into action - or inaction, as the case may be. One day this past spring, just after the U.S. invaded Iraq, The Memo warned us that anti-war protesters would be "whining" about U.S. bombs killing Iraqi civilians, and suggested they could tell that to the families of American soldiers dying there. Editing copy that morning, I was not surprised when an eager young producer killed a correspondent's report on the day's fighting - simply because it included a brief shot of children in an Iraqi hospital.
These are not isolated incidents at Fox News Channel, where virtually no one of authority in the newsroom makes a move unmeasured against management's politics, actual or perceived. At the Fair and Balanced network, everyone knows management's point of view, and, in case they're not sure how to get it on air, The Memo is there to remind them.
Nope. Not a bias bone in their jounalstic body....
So i guess the subject line of this thread is valid after all...
Comments
Trumptman is asking for a report that says Fox is conservative before he'll believe it?
Figures.
Good night.
Originally posted by Gilsch
...
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/new...aq/6918170.htm
I originally saw the article on MSNBC a few weeks ago but I'm too lazy to look for it. A quick Google found that one and many others about the study.
Maybe you should answer these questions. Is Murdoch a liberal? Are most of the personalities with shows on Fox liberal? It's not that difficult.
That of course what a bias study. I addressed that in another thread.
Originally posted by Gilsch
That means nothing. I could say the same thing about you providing claims without evidence. Are you saying that because Fox has run two Democratic debates they're not conservative?
I also asked how many the other news channels ran. It shows intent to give time to the Democrats ideas. How many unedited Democratic debates has Limbaugh run for instance on his show? Likewise it was run with no one spinning over it. I often turn to CSPAN or some other channel if there is something like a speech I wish to watch or see because I get so sick of people talking over speakers trying to point the information before it even reaches my ears.
And other news organizations don't provide links? Come on. For someone who claims not to watch Fox you seem to know a lot about them.
First how would providing web links show I watch a show?!? That is honestly the strangest assertion I have read today. I said I like the layout of the website and the extra information it provides.
Here is an example.
CNN
FoxNews
You will notice on the Fox story that whenever you are going through reading and encounter names, of relevent information it has links to searches it will generate including other stories from Fox, Dogpile, Google, etc. A nice example in there is it mentions a disagreement about the Clean Air Act and a lawsuit relating to it. One click and I have a lot more information about it. CNN doesn't do this. It doesn't mean CNN is bad or biased, just that I like having more information on a topic available and Fox makes it available.
Now take a look at the actual reported stories.
Notice that CNN never takes time to mention the results of the actual confirmation vote. It also labels him a conservative Republican that is assailed by environmental groups.
The Fox story mentions the actual results of the vote, 88-8. This would indicate support of not only Republicans as the CNN story would attempt to portray. Obviously it would indicate support of quite a few Democrats as well. Since it is Bushes' nominee, they actually quote his views on it. It also gives time to those who supported the nomination and those who had questions about it.
I simply find more information available in the Fox story in this instance. It offers more information and doesn't attempt to influence my thinking about this nominee. I don't feel the same way about the CNN story since it withholds a lot of information and doesn't give me any other sources to get more information.
I originally saw the article on MSNBC a few weeks ago but I'm too lazy to look for it. A quick Google found that one and many others about the study.
Maybe you should answer these questions. Is Murdoch a liberal? Are most of the personalities with shows on Fox liberal? It's not that difficult.
That shows what the viewers believe, but not how the reporting may have created that view. If you have a link to a study that shows for example Fox news mentioning that they intentionally obscured that information then I will be happy to look at it. It could also indicate bias in the reporting of the other channels much like I showed in the articles I listed above. Where a normal news story doesn't give much information but instead becomes a forums for critics to re-emphasize their talking points again.
Is Murdoch a liberal? I would likely say not from what I have gleamed. However I don't know his party registration. Are the personalities of the Fox News shows liberal? I don't know since I don't watch them. I do not that Greta use to be on CNN. So CNN must be a conservative mouth piece right? Hannity and Colmes has two views but Colmes is accused of being wimpy. (I know this from the Franken book in which he also challenges someone to a fight for claiming the same thing about Democrats) Bill O'Reily, I couldn't say since I have never watched his show.
So now reverse the same question. Larry King, liberal or conservative? He was even involved with dreaded talk radio. Paula Zahn, a former FoxNews employee, what is she? How about Bill Press, James Carville, and Paul Begala?
Nick
Originally posted by tonton
You're dumb. I've never read a report that says the sky is blue, either.
Let's do the trumptman cheer.
Give me a "D"!
Give me an "E"!
Give me an "N"!
Give me an "I"!
Give me an "A"!
Give me an "L"!
What's that spell?
YOU!
Give me a "N"!
Give me an "O"!
Give me a "T"!
Give me a "H"!
Give me an "I"!
Give me an "N"!
Give me a "G"!
What did Tonton contribute to the discussion...
"NOTHING"
What's in his head?
"NOTHING"
What does he think about questioning and skepticism?
"NOTHING"
What's the correlation between cable news and the sky?
"NOTHING"
Originally posted by Harald
Just woke up.
Trumptman is asking for a report that says Fox is conservative before he'll believe it?
Figures.
Good night.
Harald believes hearsay because it fits his politics..
Figures...
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
What's the correlation between cable news and the sky?
This question is so idiotic there can be no reasonable response.
Truly warped sense of logic, trumptman.
It turns out that Democratic lawmakers and not the party are raising money for the show. I was mistaken in thinking otherwise. That would just about confirm there being nothing wrong with the Ed Schultz radio program as an alternative to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, et al.
We're not talking objectivity at all here. No one is claiming objectivity! The whole purpose of the show is to frame and interpret issues in liberal terms! That's what it's there for!
What's. Wrong. With. That?
Very little, but I am glad I can satisfy your seeming insatiable appetite for arguing with people over basically nothing.
Originally posted by trumptman
Harald believes hearsay because it fits his politics..
Purely out of interest (having given up hope of objectivity with you), how would YOU describe Fox?
Liberal, neutral or conservative?
Oh, and NEVER call me liberal unless you can supply a report or a study that proves it.
Conservative News = Good, wholesome, honest, patriotic.
Liberal News = Bad, degenerative, dishonest, communist.
For anyone to argue that there is NOT a massive conservative monopoly of the AM radio airwaves is being both disingenuous and deceptive. Their fist waving right now is based on a fear that they may have to share the airwaves (assuming the show is successful).
Rush Limbaugh may not have been funded "directly" by the RNC, but Roger Ailes sure did his best to make sure he and Rush ended up massive millionaires. Roger Ailes NOW RUNS FOX NEWS! If Terry McAuliffe or Podesta became the head of CNN conservatives would eat them alive!
The point is not the method in which to get the process started, but to reach some semblance of parity...at whatever cost. Conservative watch-dog groups have succeeded extraordinarily well in convincing Americans that there is a "liberal media" and that they can't be trusted. Because of this successful campaign, media outlets like CNN go out of their way to not appear liberal exemplified by their sudden need to show stories of schools re-opening in Baghdad. There were FOUR students in the classroom. FOUR! But, it was front and center for a considerable amount of time on CNN. Yeah, liberal my ass!
Trumpt's argument is that if you complain about the conservative media, you therefore cannot support a liberal outlet. See, this is very clever arguing here. It's logic is designed to prevent liberals from creating a similar venue so that the conservative venues can remain unchallenged.
The net result is hours and hours every morning being filled by conservative ideology compared to, say, the 30 second sound bites from Tom Brokaw or Peter Jennings on the evening news. And here's the kicker, the evening news is TRYING to NOT be liberal. The conservative media doesn't even apologize for its partisan rhetoric.
Again, numerous conservative talk shows = good. One liberal talk show = bad.
A true liberal, however, will tell you that Rush has every right to broadcast his show. And a true liberal will also tell you that a liberal has the right to similar broadcasting which serves his interests too. The anger and frustration gets roused when Rush and the folks like him start "bullying" their position into the forefront while "defaming" alternative opinions futher convincing his listeners that ANY liberal ideology WILL DESTROY YOUR WAY OF LIFE!
Edit: grammar
Originally posted by Harald
Purely out of interest (having given up hope of objectivity with you), how would YOU describe Fox?
Liberal, neutral or conservative?
Oh, and NEVER call me liberal unless you can supply a report or a study that proves it.
Did I call you liberal? I believe I said you believe what fits your politics.
Likewise it is sad that you think of yourself as a large organization. Perhaps you should start referring to yourself in the third person or call yourself Harald Inc.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
There's something wrong with a liberal talk show posing as a liberal talk show, but there is nothing wrong with a non-objective news outlet posing as an objective one?
Truly warped sense of logic, trumptman.
It turns out that Democratic lawmakers and not the party are raising money for the show. I was mistaken in thinking otherwise. That would just about confirm there being nothing wrong with the Ed Schultz radio program as an alternative to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, et al.
We're not talking objectivity at all here. No one is claiming objectivity! The whole purpose of the show is to frame and interpret issues in liberal terms! That's what it's there for!
What's. Wrong. With. That?
Very little, but I am glad I can satisfy your seeming insatiable appetite for arguing with people over basically nothing.
Oh gee, I'm so sorry for the mistake. I mean obviously Ed Schultz should be considered the same as Fox News of Rush. I mean sure I don't recall either Rush or Fox News having fundraisers for them by the RNC or Republican lawmakers, but what the heck lets compare apples to oranges because Shawn can't see the difference.
There is nothing wrong with the show being liberal. Please point to where I said the show cannot be liberal. You are arguing a point no one has said anything against. I have questioned whether it is appropriate for a party to start and OWN the mechanism by which the news is reported. The Republican party does not own Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.
Of course you can't see the difference between the two though, since ideology has blinded you.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
The Republican party does not own Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.
Originally posted by trumptman
I have questioned whether it is appropriate for a party to start and OWN the mechanism by which the news is reported.
Have you? I thought you were talking about an opinion-based radio program, not objective news.
Originally posted by trumptman
My point is that it is funded propaganda that will pose as a regular talk show. It's clear you don't mind propaganda as long as it promotes what you prefer to hear.
Fox News has been declared conservative by you and others. I haven't read a study that showed say the number of favorable vs. unfavorable stories on say Republican vs. Democratic issues.
You know like here.
Nick
I think it would be hard to quantify whether a report was truly slanted one way or the other, but one study looked at Fox's guests. To summarize, CNN is tilted slightly in favor of having conservative and Republican guests, and Fox is massively tilted to conservatives and Republicans.
The numbers show an overwhelming slant on Fox towards both Republicans and conservatives. Of the 56 partisan guests on Special Report between January and May, 50 were Republicans and six were Democrats -- a greater than 8 to 1 imbalance. In other words, 89 percent of guests with a party affiliation were Republicans.
On Special Report, 65 of the 92 guests (71 percent) were avowed conservatives--that is, conservatives outnumbered representatives of all other points of view, including non-political guests, by a factor of more than 2 to 1. While FAIR did not break down the non-conservative guests by ideology, there were few avowed liberals or progressives among the small non-conservative minority; instead, there was a heavy emphasis on centrist and center-right pundits (David Gergen, Norman Ornstein, Lou Dobbs) and politicians (Sen. John Breaux, Sen. Bob Graham, Rep. Christopher Shays).
As a comparison, FAIR also studied the one-on-one newsmaker interviews on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reportsover the same time period, and found a modest but significant tilt towards Republicans, and a disproportionate minority of guests who were conservatives--but in both cases, there was far more balance than was found onSpecial Report.
Of Blitzer's 67 partisan guests, 38 were Republicans and 29 were Democrats -- a 57 percent to 43 percent split in favor of Republicans. Thirty-five out of 109 guests (32 percent) were avowed conservatives, with the remaining 68 percent divided up among the rest of the political spectrum, from center-right to left.
Only eight of Special Report's 92 guests during the study period were women, and only six were people of color -- making for a guest list that was 91 percent male and 93 percent white. Wolf Blitzer Reports was hardly a model of diversity either; its guests were 86 percent male and 93 percent white.
Special Report's guests who were women or people of color were strikingly homogenous in ideology. Seven of the show's eight female guests were either conservative or Republican, although women in general tend to be less conservative and more Democratic than men. Although African-Americans and Latinos show an even more pronounced progressive tilt, five of six people of color appearing on the show were either conservative or Republican; the sixth was an Iraqi opposition leader championed by congressional Republicans. (On Wolf Blitzer Reports, nine of 15 female guests were conservative or Republican; four out of five of the show's American guests who were people of color were non-conservative.)
What's amusing to me is that the liberal bias that Republicans whine about is very subtle. "Did you see the way Dan Rather twitched his eyebrow when he mentioned George Bush!" On the other hand, the conservative media bias on talk-radio, for example, is so blatant and extreme that Limbaugh spends hours and hours, every day, doing absolutely nothing but bashing liberals and promoting conservatives in the most stark terms. And the conservatives are the ones whining!
Originally posted by Northgate
It's very simple folks.
Conservative News = Good, wholesome, honest, patriotic.
Liberal News = Bad, degenerative, dishonest, communist.
For anyone to argue that there is NOT a massive conservative monopoly of the AM radio airwaves is being both disingenuous and deceptive. Their fist waving right now is based on a fear that they may have to share the airwaves (assuming the show is successful).
Rush Limbaugh may not have been funded "directly" by the RNC, but Roger Ailes sure did his best to make sure he and Rush ended up massive millionaires. Roger Ailes NOW RUNS FOX NEWS! If Terry McAuliffe or Podesta became the head of CNN conservatives would eat them alive!
The point is not the method in which to get the process started, but to reach some semblance of parity...at whatever cost. Conservative watch-dog groups have succeeded extraordinarily well in convincing Americans that there is a "liberal media" and that they can't be trusted. Because of this successful campaign, media outlets like CNN go out of their way to not appear liberal exemplified by their sudden need to show stories of schools re-opening in Baghdad. There were FOUR students in the classroom. FOUR! But, it was front and center for a considerable amount of time on CNN. Yeah, liberal my ass!
Boy you sure enjoy setting up those straw men and knocking them down. Keeping railing against the points no one has made or argued against!
I did not say it was wrong for a source to be liberal or conservative. I didn't say it was wrong for a person to be liberal or conservative. I didn't even say it was wrong for a medium to be conservative.
I said do you think it right for a party to create what is supposed to be a seperate organization. Regardless of the orientation of that organization.
Example:
Al Franken has made boatloads of money from his N.Y. Times Best Seller, Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them. He decides to create a liberal talk show network that will syndicate the best liberal talk show hosts from around the nation. The company will package the shows together and save a lot of work for small AM station owners who can buy the programming for less than it would cost to create themselves.
This in my mind would be just fine. Fantastic, wonderful and two adjectives to be named in the draft next season.
Would it be appropriate for the Repubican Party to fund raise and create a seperate non-private organization to counter what Franken is doing? Sure Franken is liberal and the Republican's conservative. That isn't the point. The point is that is it fair for political parties to use the political process and fund raising to create organizations that fight private companies. I don't care what side of the political spectrum it is on.
Nick
[offtopic]
by the way a book about film that I use in class is called Film Art . . . . it's not so great but references much with reading and viewing lists
[/offtopic]
Originally posted by trumptman
I said do you think it right for a party to create what is supposed to be a seperate organization. Regardless of the orientation of that organization.
Yes.
A party is free to establish new forms of marketing avenues similar to the way RNC pollster Frank Luntz has done by putting out 500-page manuals every year that goes issue by issue on what the logic of the position is from the Republican side, what the other guys' logic is, how to attack it, and what language to use.
http://poynter.org/forum/?id=letters
From CHARLIE REINA: So Chris Wallace says Fox News Channel really is fair and balanced. Well, I guess that settles it. We can all go home now. I mean, so what if Wallace's salary as Fox's newest big-name anchor ends with a whole lot of zeroes? So what if he hasn't spent a day in the FNC newsroom yet?
My advice to the pundits: If you really want to know about bias at Fox, talk to the grunts who work there - the desk assistants, tape editors, writers, researchers and assorted producers who have to deal with it every day. Ask enough of them what goes on, promise them anonymity, and you'll get the real story.
The fact is, daily life at FNC is all about management politics. I say this having served six years there - as producer of the media criticism show, News Watch, as a writer/producer of specials and (for the last year of my stay) as a newsroom copy editor. Not once in the 20+ years I had worked in broadcast journalism prior to Fox - including lengthy stays at The Associated Press, CBS Radio and ABC/Good Morning America - did I feel any pressure to toe a management line. But at Fox, if my boss wasn't warning me to "be careful" how I handled the writing of a special about Ronald Reagan ("You know how Roger [Fox News Chairman Ailes] feels about him."), he was telling me how the environmental special I was to produce should lean ("You can give both sides, but make sure the pro-environmentalists don't get the last word.")
Editorially, the FNC newsroom is under the constant control and vigilance of management. The pressure ranges from subtle to direct. First of all, it's a news network run by one of the most high-profile political operatives of recent times. Everyone there understands that FNC is, to a large extent, "Roger's Revenge" - against what he considers a liberal, pro-Democrat media establishment that has shunned him for decades. For the staffers, many of whom are too young to have come up through the ranks of objective journalism, and all of whom are non-union, with no protections regarding what they can be made to do, there is undue motivation to please the big boss.
Sometimes, this eagerness to serve Fox's ideological interests goes even beyond what management expects. For example, in June of last year, when a California judge ruled the Pledge of Allegiance's "Under God" wording unconstitutional, FNC's newsroom chief ordered the judge's mailing address and phone number put on the screen. The anchor, reading from the Teleprompter, found himself explaining that Fox was taking this unusual step so viewers could go directly to the judge and get "as much information as possible" about his decision. To their credit, the big bosses recognized that their underling's transparent attempt to serve their political interests might well threaten the judge's physical safety and ordered the offending information removed from the screen as soon as they saw it. A few months later, this same eager-to-please newsroom chief ordered the removal of a graphic quoting UN weapons inspector Hans Blix as saying his team had not yet found WMDs in Iraq. Fortunately, the electronic equipment was quicker on the uptake (and less susceptible to office politics) than the toady and displayed the graphic before his order could be obeyed.
But the roots of FNC's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it.
The Memo was born with the Bush administration, early in 2001, and, intentionally or not, has ensured that the administration's point of view consistently comes across on FNC. This year, of course, the war in Iraq became a constant subject of The Memo. But along with the obvious - information on who is where and what they'll be covering - there have been subtle hints as to the tone of the anchors' copy. For instance, from the March 20th memo: "There is something utterly incomprehensible about Kofi Annan's remarks in which he allows that his thoughts are 'with the Iraqi people.' One could ask where those thoughts were during the 23 years Saddam Hussein was brutalizing those same Iraqis. Food for thought." Can there be any doubt that the memo was offering not only "food for thought," but a direction for the FNC writers and anchors to go? Especially after describing the U.N. Secretary General's remarks as "utterly incomprehensible"?
The sad truth is, such subtlety is often all it takes to send Fox's newsroom personnel into action - or inaction, as the case may be. One day this past spring, just after the U.S. invaded Iraq, The Memo warned us that anti-war protesters would be "whining" about U.S. bombs killing Iraqi civilians, and suggested they could tell that to the families of American soldiers dying there. Editing copy that morning, I was not surprised when an eager young producer killed a correspondent's report on the day's fighting - simply because it included a brief shot of children in an Iraqi hospital.
These are not isolated incidents at Fox News Channel, where virtually no one of authority in the newsroom makes a move unmeasured against management's politics, actual or perceived. At the Fair and Balanced network, everyone knows management's point of view, and, in case they're not sure how to get it on air, The Memo is there to remind them.
Nope. Not a bias bone in their jounalstic body....
So i guess the subject line of this thread is valid after all...