|An example of how the media can show bias....||ClydeTri|
Apr 14, 2003 9:45 AM
|An example of how the media can be biased, but it be very hard to detect....I was just home at lunch. Rumsfeld and high level Kuwaiti Sheik were leaving a meeting and stopped to give comments and answer questions. Rumsfeld spoke, then the Kuwaiti Sheik. The Sheik spoke very "glowingly" in favor of the Iraqi liberation. As they walked away, the anchor for Fox News made a comment that was telling...they had a split screen on their monitors and they were watching Al Jeezera (sp?) broadcast the impromptu news conference of Rumsfeld and the Sheik. Fox reported that as soon as the Kuwaiti started speaking they broke away to another story. HOw was this biased? They dont want to show promeminent Arabs in favor of this war. This type of manipulation goes on every day on all media outlets, both conservative and liberal. We just have to shift thru the muck for the truth.|
|re: An example of how the media can show bias....||Jon Billheimer|
Apr 14, 2003 9:58 AM
|This is a very good observation and a good example. However, when is comes to distortion and bias the Arab media is guilty of gross and willful distortion of information. This media is also either directly controlled or heavily influenced by the Arab governments.
Distortion and editorial bias in the Western-based media outlets--even Fox--is far milder than in the Arab media. What we're primarily guilty of, in my opinion, is wrapping our behaviours in the mantle of virtue and Western political values. So death by a virtuous American bomb or bullet is far preferable to death from an evil Iraqi bullet.
|re: An example of how the media can show bias....||Live Steam|
Apr 14, 2003 12:21 PM
|"So death by a virtuous American bomb or bullet is far preferable to death from an evil Iraqi bullet."
Intent is everything. Just ask a lawyer :O)
|Let't look at both (potential) sides of the story.||czardonic|
Apr 14, 2003 10:08 AM
|First, lets just pretend for the sake of argument that Al Jazeera cut away from the Sheik because they wanted to supress America friendly Arab opinions.
Now, on the one hand you have Rumsfeld and his PR Dept. at Fox News broadcasting this dog and pony show, presumably as an attempt to convince Americans that Arabs think we are really swell.
On the other hand you have Al Jazeera tuning out the Sheiks irrelevant toadying, knowing full well that Kuwait is an Ameican client state that supports our policy in exchange for protection and in no way represents a significant portion of the Arab world.
I really suggest you tune out Fox News entirely, so you don't have to shift through all that muck. Its becoming obvious that Fox isn't the anti-CNN so much as it is the anti-Al-Jazeera.
|Let't look at both (potential) sides of the story.||Alpedhuez55|
Apr 14, 2003 11:34 AM
|Fox is not without their bias, but CNN is a lot closer to Al-Jazeera than woud would like us to think. They thought enough to not act on their advance knowledge of Saddam's son-in-laws murder. I guess they wanted to keep that Baghdad Bureau open at all costs, including blood. Though now after getting hammered all weekend, Eason Jordan is claiming it would have put his people in risk.
One could have followed the coverage on CNN, CBS and the NY Times and come almost to the conclusion that the US was losing. The NY Times seemed intent on trying to make the administration look bau using fabricated quotes and mis-quotes in their reporting.
If you what a direct comparison the this Al-Jazeera Cutaway, look at CBS going to cutting to "The Bold and the Beautiful" shortly before the statue of Saddam was toppled in Baghdad. And Dan Rather is probably still scratching his head as to why his evening News have dropped duing war time and is even being beat in the ratings "King of the Hill" reruns in LA. My guess is because a lot people think if the US needs Saddams DNA samples to identify the corpse, all they need to do is ask Dan Rather to spit ;)
If you want to cut through the fog during the War, Fox was the place to go. THey were accurate in their reporting. They were not calling for the gloom and doom like most of the other networks. THey are #1 in cable records because they did the best job. Sure you can accuse them of all you want Czar. Fox reported the truth with the war. And aparrently the truth was not what you were looking for in reporting so you looked elsewhere.
|Fox News is Al-Jazeera for Americans . . .||czardonic|
Apr 14, 2003 11:46 AM
|. . .who want news that tells them that they want to hear. The reason this is not obvious to you is probably your blinding righ-wing bias, which prevents you from seeing the facts for what they are.
Shame on the other networks not report the war for the succession of uplifting snapshots that it really was. Thank goodness we have Fox News to remind us that America is never wrong, and that the War is always going exactly as planned. Indeed, why look anywhere else for news?
|I couldn't agree more.||TJeanloz|
Apr 14, 2003 11:54 AM
|Rupert Murdoch is making William Randolph Hearst's ghost proud. Fox "News" is some of the best yellow journalism of the last 100 years. Absolutely phenominal in its ability to show the American people what they want to see and tell them what they want to hear.
The more interesting thing is how they got there. When Fox News debuted, it actually was relatively fair and balanced. Until they realized they could grab more ratings by swinging to the right and getting hot anchors. The further right they went, the harder it became to attract left-wing guests (because they would just be outshouted by the right-wing guest, with the support of the host). And the ratings are great. Fox News did to the news what Fox network did to primetime.
|I never thought about it, but you are exactly right.||czardonic|
Apr 14, 2003 12:11 PM
"Fox News did to the news what Fox network did to primetime."
And then there is Fox Sports Net, which seems to be devoted to "You Gotta See This" and Tom Arnold's Damn Sports Show.
|At least we can agree on something (nm)||TJeanloz|
Apr 14, 2003 12:15 PM
Apr 14, 2003 12:20 PM
|Their anchors, shoot, nearly all their ladies are damn hot! I think they need to add Nancy Grace. Add her, dress 'em up like Jillian Barberie over on this coast and you'd damn near have to rename it PerfectTV.|
|Dont Forget Jane Skinner||Alpedhuez55|
Apr 14, 2003 2:48 PM
|These pictures do not do Jane Skinner justice. Her hair is a little longer now and those lips are just perfect. ;-)|
|I guess you just can't handle the truth||Alpedhuez55|
Apr 14, 2003 12:26 PM
|Fox is far from the Al-Jazeea of America. We already have our on Al-Jazeera, CNN. Did it ever occur to you that your left wing bias is blinding you iew of events?
During the past month, the military and administration did a lot more right than wrong. Fox reported that. Are they supposed kiss Saddams A$$ like CNN to make you happy? Is one of their reporters supposed to say he will help Iraq like Peter Arnett did?
Pundit panel spin aside, Fox has had accurate reporting throught the war. Sure they stack their panels with conservatives, but their reporters have been accurate and fair. Even their embed was saying they were using one food ration a day during the Sand Storm though I doubt Rumsfeld would have wanted that made public. Geraldo was booted from Iraq by the military. If they were in bed with the administration, would that have happenned?
Their reporting was fair and balanced during the war. The fact is Bush, Rumsfeld and Franks did a great job so far. You do not want to hear that though. You need to seek out some other sources.
|CNN kissed Saddam's backside?||czardonic|
Apr 14, 2003 12:28 PM
|Is that what they are reporting on Fox News?|
|Actually the NY Times ran the piece||Alpedhuez55|
Apr 14, 2003 12:36 PM
|They ran Eason Jordan's oped peice about despite having advance knowledge that his son in laws would be murdered, he let it slide rather than close their Baghdad bureau and get their sources out of the country. Sounds like they are dealing with the devil to me.
|Sheesh. <i>Now</i> you believe the NY Times?||czardonic|
Apr 14, 2003 1:21 PM
|If there was any doubt that you will endorse any source that tells you what you want to hear, that's got to have dispelled it.
Did you actually watch any of CNN's coverage? You'd have to be absolutely rabid in your jingoism to discern any praise of Saddam in any of the American media's coverage. The accross the board cheerleading is part of what makes Fox News so ridiculous. It was an unintentional parody of a media spectrum that had already abandoned any pretense of objectivity.
|Not the NY Times||moneyman|
Apr 14, 2003 1:47 PM
|It was from the proverbial horse's ... mouth, the chief news executive at CNN.
Pretty disturbing, don't you think?
Apr 14, 2003 2:04 PM
|Though not surprising in any way. I'm probably missing something, but I'm not sure how pulling out of Baghdad altogether would have saved a single one of these people, deprived Saddam of an iota of legitimacy or improved on our understanding of what was going on in Iraq under Saddam.
Anyway, I am still a bit puzzled as to why a certain liberal media conspiracy buff would believe on word published in the New York Times, much less the words of a CNN executive.
Apr 14, 2003 2:34 PM
|Czar You Said:
"Anyway, I am still a bit puzzled as to why a certain liberal media conspiracy buff would believe on word published in the New York Times, much less the words of a CNN executive."
It is quite simple Czar. I know CNN, FOX and the NY Times are all biased. I still watch or read them all. I know where they all lean and am able to cut through most of the fog they throw out.
I gave you a couple of examples of the Times biased reporting last week. You defended it. Obviously they are telling you what you want to hear which is not quite the truth. Maybe you should be just as outraged by distortion on the left as you are on the right.
|I don't read the Times, so you theory is bunk.||czardonic|
Apr 14, 2003 2:57 PM
|Speaking as a person who does not read the Times and thus would not be acclimated to their purported editorail dirty tricks, I did not see any evidence of intentional distortion in their ommision of "a bit" from that qoute. It certainly wasn't outrageous.
Meanwhile, your claim to know when you are being pandered to is belied by your viewing habits. Can't you see the implausibility in your assertion that when Fox isn't broadcasting the most nakedly partisan BS to be found on any network, they do a 180º switch and provide the most objective coverage of the war?
Here's something to ponder. Suppose the war was going less than peachily keen. Would Fox News report that? Or would they continue with their "I'm okay, you're okay, Liberals are ruining the country" script? Never mind, they'd probably find a way to blame it on Clinton.
|I don't read the Times, so you theory is bunk.||purplepaul|
Apr 14, 2003 3:27 PM
|I'm sure they would blame it on Clinton, but I do believe they'd report it. I think that's what many here are suggesting: Foxnews reports fairly accurately, then opines from the right.|
|I see that you've slyly demoted them to "fairly accurate".||czardonic|
Apr 14, 2003 6:39 PM
|That's not quite the same as "fair and accurate", though it is much closer to the truth. Seeing as how you can discern the miles of distinction between "different" and "a bit different", this is quite a strident criticism of their less than consistent adherence to the facts.|
|I see that you've slyly demoted them to "fairly accurate".||purplepaul|
Apr 14, 2003 6:57 PM
|czardonic, I get the sense that you would be a lot happier living under a Stalinist dictator who spoon feeds you "facts" that you would be unable to deny.
Fair, fairly. Who cares? If I said fox sucks, watch CNN, you'd probably say, "the US media is just a tool of the government."
Fine. I choose not to look at my country as fundamentally evil. Whether you believe it or not, lots of people are intelligent enough to watch fox and know when they're being fed a load of crap. BTW, the reason I believe we're not an evil country is because I know enough Americans, and none of them are evil. So there.
|I don't read the Times, so you theory is bunk.||Alpedhuez55|
Apr 15, 2003 9:21 AM
|There are a couple of parts to any news network. One is the actual news reporting, the other is the pundit spin.
THe news reporting on Fox is accurate. Every news outlet has had reports that have proved to be false. Fox did not jump on the doom and gloom bandwagon that some of the other networks did. Instead of reporting that troops were in an operational, they reported that their troops were moving into embeds. MS/NBC and CNN still insisted there was a pause even though their embeds were saying they were on the move to Baghdad. Sure there is a lot of fog in war coverage. Fox just seemed to cut through it better than the other networks.
For pundits Fox leans conservative. They do have pleanty of liberal pundits such as Susan Estrich, Nina Totenberg, Elenor Clift and others who spin the other side as well though. Most people are capable of telling the difference between pundit spin and news reporting.
As for not reading the New York Times, you were pretty quick to jump to their defense last week. I guess I thought you may have been better informed. You were obviously trying to defend something you do not understand and just wasted the time of the people on this board.
Do you even watch Fox Czar, or are you just wasting out time on that one too?
|I read the NYT article in question, and your take was nutty. . .||czardonic|
Apr 15, 2003 9:53 AM
|. . .much as is the reporting I see on Fox News every time I tune in to get a preview of what the right-wingers will be reciting as gospel the next day.|
|Well, I think you are an authority on the nutty...||Alpedhuez55|
Apr 15, 2003 10:27 AM
|That is most of your posts, whether it be defending false reporting or Saddam's "foot dragging" compliance with the UN or most other issues. If you come out against me on an issue, it is like a reassurance that I am right.
When you call my take on the NY Times doctored and fabricated quotes nutty, it makes a fiscal conservative like myself feel good. I guess I needed felt a little dirty afhter one of the NY Times own columnisits agreed with my assessment of that quote. Your calling it nutty just made me know I was right!!!
Thank you for being you Czar :) God Bless!!!
|Your sarcasm leaves A BIT to be desired. (nm)||czardonic|
Apr 15, 2003 10:43 AM
|Disturbing indeed. "I'm probably missing something"||bic|
Apr 15, 2003 5:27 PM
|The truth comes out!|
|Never thought I'd be in czardonic's camp, but||moneyman|
Apr 14, 2003 12:59 PM
|If you really believe that Fox is "fair and balanced", then you only have one channel on your TV. Repeating what I've said before, Fox's coverage is like watching the home team's broadcasters during a football game. In no way does it resemble unbiased journalism. I got tired of the cheerleading early on, and could only watch in short bursts. There were many times that I seriously doubted their ability to grasp the gravity of the situation. War is serious business, and these guys (and gals) were all but wearing red, white and blue face paint and shaking pom-poms. The lack of dignity in their reporting was alarming.
OTOH, the other stations weren't much better. What we have to remember is that television exists as a medium for the sale of advertising. News shows have to draw an audience, just like sitcoms and sports, or they go away. To get an audience, Fox hollers for the home team. CNN, as revealed in Eason Jordan's telling op-ed, sold its journalistic soul to maintain an exclusive Baghdad bureau.
We reap what we sow.
|I think we all agree .....||ClydeTri|
Apr 14, 2003 1:16 PM
|Fox is to the right..and CNN,MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and CBS are to the left..some slightly, some alot...and on radio, the only "network", NPR is far left...
Obviously being the only conservative network in news helps fox get the ratings...all the others split the liberal viewers...
|I don't think we agree on that much,||TJeanloz|
Apr 15, 2003 7:05 AM
|I would put Fox on the right, the rest of the "mainstream" media, NPR included, in a pretty centric stand, and some outwardly left-leaning media on the left. NPR is not nearly as far left as Fox is right.|
|Never thought I'd be in czardonic's camp, but||Alpedhuez55|
Apr 14, 2003 2:05 PM
|Moneyman, I am not saying Fox if fair and balanced. I am just saying that their war reporting has been the most accurate of the main stream media. I have posted that Fox has a bias and stacks their panels with conservatives. I think their reporting is accurate though.
I think I can judge when I am being told the truth and when I am being fed a line of crap. It seems some people want to be fed a line of crap rather than hear that the war has gone very well.
If Fox causes other media outlets to be more accurate in their reporting to compete with them, they will have done the whole country a great service. Judging from the coverage on CNN and the big three networks, that has not happenned yet judging from the past week.
|I don't think they're that accurate,||TJeanloz|
Apr 15, 2003 7:02 AM
|My impression of Fox is that they've been trigger-happy with the news. A Marine finds a bottle of bug-spray in some Iraqi barracks, and Fox runs a front line story that screams "Chemical Weapons Found!!"; every other news outlet buries the same event as a "possible indication of WMD" -- which is far more accurate. The most amusing bit I've seen on Fox was Geraldo adamantly denying that he was in any trouble in Iraq, to the point of calling the other networks liars and cheats, upset because they couldn't get the stories that he was getting. And then Geraldo was off the air. Fox's reporting has been so biased that it is rarely any more accurate than most news outlets.|
|I don't think they're that accurate,||Alpedhuez55|
Apr 15, 2003 8:23 AM
|Geraldo should have been kicked out of Iraq. Of course he is going to try to claim he did nothing wrong but he did. Geraldo is an
As for the bug spray, that is a pretty big exaghration. I am assuming you are referring to the 15 or so barrels of pestacides that were burried near some air base. If memory serves me correct that story was broken by NPR's embed. They were reporting it on their website before Fox MSNBC or CNN. That was the first place I saw it. The field tests did reveal false positives.
It seems that when most people criticze Fox they cannot bring up specific events. There are pleanty of things wrong with Fox. I cannot stand Geraldo and Bill O'Reilly myself. Do you even watch it or do you just accuse it of being biased?
Also if you think CNN, ABC, NPR et al. are closer to centerist, I think you lean a lot further left than you realize.
|I don't think they're that accurate,||TJeanloz|
Apr 15, 2003 9:23 AM
|So Geraldo's claim that he was not in trouble and that CNN and NBC were lying about it is not a specific event? I watch Fox all the time; I think of it about like Debka -- it has been breaking the stories first, asking questions later, but they do tend to report events earlier than anybody else.
In terms of where the other outlets stand, I think people who are to either side of an outlet view that outlet as more extreme than it is. I think that CNN et. al. do a good job of representing the vast centric population in the Country. I think they're often on the left side of dead-center, but they're close. They aren't polarizing to the left like Fox is to the right.
|I don't think they're that accurate,||Alpedhuez55|
Apr 15, 2003 9:51 AM
|Geraldo was more defending himself than covering an event, much like Peter Arnett was doing when he became the story. I disagree with your assessmnent on Fox Breaking Stories and asking questions later. I think that is an very big exaggeration on your part. Every network has had initial reports later proved false.
I also will stick to my assessment that your view of the what the center is to the left of what it really is. That is whay you are not able to accept that CNN is a liberal news organization, not one that represents the center. CNN's losing ratings ratings to Fox should be as good a sign as any that the center is moving two the right.
|I don't think they're that accurate,||TJeanloz|
Apr 15, 2003 10:00 AM
|We really don't have enough information to discuss the "break first, ask questions later" objectively -- but my impression is that this is the case.
Maybe I've spent too many years in Boulder and Boston, but CNN is not nearly as egregiously left-wing as the Boulder "media"; nor is it as left wing as the Boston Globe. Given that perspective, I think CNN is to the right of a lot of major news outlets. There is no doubt that they are left of Fox - but I think the right believes they are bigger than they are. In the 2000 Presidential election more votes were cast for people on the left side of the aisle than those on the right -- but that event alone showed how even the distribution of polical views is in this country.
|I don't think they're that accurate,||Alpedhuez55|
Apr 15, 2003 10:49 AM
|I think all the networks including Fox, have been a little guilty of the break first ask questions later. It is a result of the embeds. THey will see something that is suspected and run a report on it before confirmation. I think Fox broke a story like that on that 100 acre chemical facility a couple of weeks back.
CNN may be to the right of NPR or CBS, but that does not make them in the center. As for Fox being bigger than the right thinks, Fox is beating CNN and MSNBC in the cable news ratings. I think that would make them bigger than CNN at the moment.
Yes the 2000 election had a small advantage to the left in the poular vote. The 2002 elections showed a move to the right with the Republicans taking back the Senate and picking up seats in the house. At the moment I think the country is moving to the right, but that could change in the next year and half.
|Ratings are not an unbiased sample...||TJeanloz|
Apr 15, 2003 11:02 AM
|I'm sorry for this, but I'm right in the middle of reviewing statistical analysis for the CFA, but: The fact that Fox beats CNN in the ratings only shows that for people who are watching cable news, more are watching Fox than CNN. But you have admitted that CNN and MSNBC are both on the other side -- it seems that if you wanted to draw a conclusion, you would have to sum the CNN and MSNBC ratings (i.e. all of the 'left' ratings, and sum all of the 'right' ratings). If Fox has 1 million viewers, and CNN and MSNBC each have 750,000 viewers, you can't draw the conclusion that because Fox won the ratings, the right has more viewers.
The other issue is that we might postulate that the sample is not unbiased -- perhaps people on the right are more likely to watch cable news than those on the left. Keep in mind also that the number of people who watch cable news, including Fox, is DWARFED by the number who watch the national network newscasts. NBC, ABC, and CBS all beat Fox in the total news ratings -- it's only been the cable ratings that Fox has been able to claim.
In terms of the 2000/2002 elections, it isn't who won that's actually important - it's how close it was. The closeness is indicative of a large population that is very close to the center of the political spectrum.
|It is called a trend TJ||Alpedhuez55|
Apr 15, 2003 11:59 AM
|It is showing a clear trend TJ. THe other major and cable networks have been steadly losing thier viewership in recent years. Fox has been gaining. Networks have always gained viewers in a time of war, until this year. Fox is the only network gaining.
NBC news has remained steady. CBS, ABC, CNN & MS/NBC have all seen their ratings drop. During the same time Fox news ratings have grown. And at many times the combined ratings of CNN & MSNBC do not match Fox. MS/NBC has very small ratings.
You are just pointing out how slanted our news media in this country is when you talk of being in the center of viewership. Out of the top eight TV news outlets in the country one is conservative. All of the others are liberal to left wing.
Fox will never beat all of the other outlets combined. What may happen though is them to help make the other networks move a bit to center.
|Rumsfeld and the Sheik||mohair_chair|
Apr 14, 2003 11:12 AM
|Sorry, I can't help it, but this sounds like the title of a slapstick/buddy/road movie. Coming soon, to a theater near you, Rumsfeld and the Sheik! These two zany guys travel by plane, train, and automobile in a madcap adventure to reach Baghdad to set up a new government. Hilarity ensues.|| |