Although it is pointless because you won't believe anything DT or I say... Shepard Smith criticized the Bush Administration for their poor response to Hurricane Victims along the Mississippi Gulf Coast when he was down here about 2 months ago doing a special report.. I know because I was watching it because I am from the area and was interested int he report.

Also the newest fox anchor who just left CNN after 10 years was on just the other day during a report criticizing the Bush Administration about approving the sale of control of 6 US prots to the UAE.. of which I agree with the criticism at well.

why popular

As people pointed out Pro Wrestling had for over 20 years had the highest cable ratings… Not sure if they do still but when I was receiving Multichannel News it certainly was.

Point being as some pointed out ratings do not equate to quality. If you notice which is going to be very appropriate, the Enquirer type newspapers have always had huge circulations. Now how does that tie in to Fox. Geee glad you asked. Where do you think the Australian Murdoch made his money???????????????????????????????? You guessed it. Read a book on him many years ago. His daddy owned a newspaper or papers in Australia. Little Murdoch went to college in England and saw how profitable those trash Enquirer mags were and when Ruppy went back to Australia he took over daddy’s papers and guess what he started in Australia… yep you got it splash sensationalism trash in Australia…. Now you know the rest of the story, he then brought the same trash to America…. national star in 1974...

http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/newscorp-timeline.asp
http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/biogra...upert-1931.html



Is it reliable? Is the star reliable?

Why has Fox News gained so much viewership since it became a main stay among cable news programs?

Why did Star type trash papers do so well?

FNC Senior Judicial Analyst and Co-Host:

Napolitano: When Congress enacted the FISA act in ‘77, it also made it criminal for anyone in this country to use the power of the government to wiretap without a search warrant. It made it easy to get the search warrant with the FISA law, but it said you have to get the search warrant.

Host: So what the president’s done is a criminal act?

Napolitano: The president has violated the law in the name of national security, not wanting to violate the law, believing he’s doing the right thing, but he violated it nonetheless. He can’t pick and choose which laws to obey and not to obey any more than the rest of us can.

Fox News, “Dayside”, December 19, 2005

Is Fox News a reliable news source?

I wouldn't say it is reliable in terms of "fair and balanced" newscasting.
It delivers its news with a slant towards the right. O'Reilly is the most obnoxious
of the bunch because he is quite arrogant in his spewing of his "opinions"
as "facts." I happen to agree with him on many points, but he needs to learn
how to stop beating the viewer over the head with whatever argument he's
making.

We've discussed the liberals of Fox News in other threads. For example,
Alan Colmes is probably quite intelligent with valid views to share, but he is
constantly verbally cut of by Hannity and his personal appearance doesn't
help his credibility. Americans have been conditioned to put more stock
in what the good looking people have to say.


Why has Fox News gained so much viewership since it became a main
stay among cable news programs?

Because they have very good-looking, highly opinionated newscasters who
do our thinking for us. All we have to do is sit back and enjoy the show.

kalabus - thank you for not simply regurgitating conventional ideals about the media. jesus christ I have to read through a bunch of crap to get to anybody that expells logic.

it's rare that you can engage in a debate with ANYONE who follows mainstream American culture that's not based on sensationalist, emotionally potent aspects. The reason I come to America's debate is at least there are rules of decorum which don't exist on children's show's like Fox News or whatever. I think in order to maintain a TRUE democracy people should expell the corporate voice out of their windows and get educated. Literally get rid of their televisions sets and go out into the community and educate themselves.

Look, the point of the media should be to educate people. But in a media system such as we have, the point is to sell ads. Pro wrestling (which I have a soft spot for because I dug it as a kid, big Terry Funk and Buzz Sawyer fan haha) - but that will sell more ads then serious debate. So the advertisement system of media is flawed. When there's a profit-motive involved, by nature it is flawed. MONEY does not sync with TRUTH. Only Freedom syncs with truth, in my opinion.

DTOM & Sleeper:

Thanks guys. I admit it, I was wrong. Fox News is really bad, not because the anchors regularly give opinions that are 100% in favor of the Bush administration. The network is bad because the anchors regularly give opinions when they should just deliver the news. What makes Fox News REALLY bad is that the anchors regularly give opinions that are nearly 100% in favor of the Bush administration. Thanks for spotting my error, and helping me to sort that out. I admit it, I was wrong.

And regarding Sleeper's quote that he remembers: I searched Nexis Lexis today for Fox News Transcripts in the last year containing "Shepard Smith AND Bush AND Katrina". There were 59 transcripts. I read through every single one of them. There was lots of stuff in there, from Shepard Smith's mouth, about the Federal response being effective, when it came. Not necessarily opinions, just relaying the news. If Sleeper remembers Smith criticising Bush, it seems to have been something like this (the only one 'critical' I found out of the 100 or so quotes, dozens of which were merely 'Bush is visiting the area' or that 'things are great now that the Guard is here'):


This quote, and the one that Sleeper remembers, but that I didn't find, were uncharacteristic of Smith. For the record, I do believe you, Sleeper.

Also, thanks, DTOM for finally making Fox News, and not niftydrifty, or "the left" (whatever that means), or Liberals' panties, or how nifty would fare in an academic debate, or your patience, ... the topic. We have, in the end, indeed learned something from each other, eh?

And, OK, I do fully admit I was wrong, I was wrong, I was wrong, on this technicality.
But DTOM, you do realize that Napitalono's remarks were SOOOOO uncharacteristic of anyone on Fox, that this quote you found became cause for celebration (or rather, shock) in the Liberal blog community?

http://thismodernworld.com/2568

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/19.html#a6390

http://www.speakspeak.org/speak-blog/2005/...l-analyst-says/

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/12/21/yet_an...n_americans.php

Are these the only times?

And also, DTOM, it seems you don't realize that Napitalono is a "Judicial Analyst" on FNC, not a news anchor or reporter. I'll still give you credit for it though, because I'm generous, and because he's on there a lot. I've learned my lesson.

Edit: oops, I had Sleeper's name wrong ...

So your argument against my "100% right wing" comment is that they have liberal guests and panelists on from time to time? Big deal DTOM, I would suspect you've seen how those guests are treated on the shows. If they happen to be on O'Reilly or Hannity they are likely to end up in a shouting match with the host instead of being heard. I would also expect that you've read the reports from media matters citing the fact that the vast majority of the guests and panelists are conservative mouthpieces.

I don't know how anyone can say they are treated to the viewpoint of mainstream liberals on FoxNews when the guests always end up on the defensive and in a shouting match with the hosts of these shows. That or they find someone completely obscure, and often a little crazy, and claim they are "liberal".

Hey, here's a thought that hasn't been introduced into this discussion.

One thing I can say that Fox, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS all have in common is their unswavering commitment to keeping the news as predominantly male and White as possible.

Where exactly are the women at Fox? Or CNN? Or MSNBC? Greta Van Sustren? Rita Cosby? Paula Zahn? Nancy Grace? Where exactly is the news in those talking heads?

And no, the presence of Elizabeth Vargas doesn't impress me Not. One. Little Bit.

Typically, these debates turn upon whether FOX is "liberal" or "conservative" or "fair" or "biased." SO WHAT? What I notice first and foremost is how much of a bastion of White males the network news is. It's the same old tired arguments that really don't speak to the issue of how whether the media is liberal or conservative, it sure isn't very ethnically diverse.

A year or so ago, you could turn on the evening news and it was Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather and Peter Jennings as the voice (and face) of reason and authority.
Fast forward to the winter of 2006 and it's not much different. Same old voices of reason and authority and still it's a White Man's World.

Same as it ever was. And God knows I'm sick of it. Can't FOX find any Black or Latino conservatives out there to deliver the news? If they're really trying to blaze a trail, why continue to be locked into the same old paradigm?

Maybe because when it counts the suits at Fox News are just perpetuating the same old crap just dressed up in neo-conservative drag.

No, CJ, you're missing your own point. The people that I mentioned (and I left some out) are liberals who appear on FNC daily, not as you like to spin it, 'from time to time'.
So have we now moved the debate from 'there aren't any liberals on Fox to liberals get treated badly on Fox?'
As far as mainstream views, I would submit that that is all we get on FNC, as well as the other cable stations. I certainly don't get what I would consider as conservative points as view on any cable channels. All we are treated to is fluff for the squishy middle.


I remember the same things that Sleeper does (as I was in Alabama when Katrina hit, I was glued to the news also). I don't have the transcript, but the reporting and blame laying on the Bush administration by Geraldo Rivera and Shepard Smith are well documented. The link contains the gist of Smith's report.

Seattle Times


No, I fully realize what his position at FNC is. Maybe you didn't realize that you quoted him yesterday to bolster your claim.

What I will admit is though I believe FNC is a reliable news source, as reliable as the other cable news outlets anyway..........they are primarily a political analysis and news magazine program. I see both points of view, left and right on Fox, but I don't get my hard news from them, and I don't think any other informed viewer should either, at least not as a primary source.

The debate seems to have drifted from the questions asked to 'Fox is slanted to the right'.

This is a reasonable argument that also has no "solution". There is no right or wrong answer, the answer lies within your perspective. If Fox or any other organization "leans" right or left is a simple matter of this perspective. e.g. From the Michael Moore camp's perspective Ted Kennedy and CNN might centrist, or even "lean to the right", and I know plenty of Republicans that Emmett Tyrrell would consider RINOs.

The real answer to the question if something is "left or right" revolves around where one choses to put the center. Many who chose to call themselves "moderates" or "independents" believe that they are in the center. Unfortunately for them, general election results seem to show the center is actually further to the right than the independents would prefer to believe.

So does Fox lean to the right or Left? It's all a matter or perspective

You make a good point, and you make good points about perspective. But it seems that, similarly, what might be 'drifting' to you, is actually on topic. For example:

Question: Is Fox News a reliable news source?

Answer: No, Fox is slanted to the right.

Question: Why has Fox News gained so much viewership since it became a main stay among cable news programs?

Answer: Because Fox is slanted to the right.

But this isn't all we critics and dislikers of Fox have been saying. We've been saying that it's not just slanted a little, it's slanted a lot. We've also been saying that many opinions are stated during news coverage. Etc, etc, etc. These points all are intended to support the postion that Fox is not a reliable news source.

By coming to this conclusion, did you find this answer so concisely because there are simply more conservatives than liberals? I don't particularly believe this, but it would seem to be the only data to source your answer by.

I think Yogurt has a point. We all place the 'center' in a different point on the graph, therefore our limits of left and right are going to be similarly displaced compared to others. Many on the right are poo-poo'ed when they state that they think that much of the MSM leans left, but those same people make similar accusations and wonder why everyone is not on the bandwagon.

I'm pretty much convinced that there are more Conservatives than Liberals. I'm not talking about Democrats and Republicans. Here's why I think so:

If these poll results/conclusions are accurate, it would certainly explain why a Conservatively-slanted news source would fair better in ratings and viewership than a Liberal-slanted news source.

What the nation is really dying for, however, is a moderate-slanted news source. How to make it sensationalist or exciting, though?

This is a good observation. I’ll address Rita Cosby first.

It seems to me that MSNBC and to a lesser degree CNN are trying to emulate FNC. Rita Cosby and Monica Crowley (who may have her own show after the Olympics) are both former Fox employees. I don’t like Crowley’s rightward slant and Cosby, well I’d place her in the throwaway category. Natalee Holloway has been missing since May and on her latest show (Thursday, Feb.16) Cosby was still fanning the flames. Ironically, you don't have to watch Fox to get the FNC impact.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11413381/

With the exception of Cosby, MSNBC seems to relegate women to the role of substitutes in prime time. Although Keith Olbermann is easily my favorite, the show loses nothing when Alison Stewart takes over for him.

Alison Stewart

I’ve actually liked Hardball better when Chris Matthews takes a break and Campbell Brown, Andrea Mitchell or Nora O’ Donnell take his chair.

Stewart, Brown, Mitchell and O’Donnell are all capable of doing a substantive prime time show better than Cosby and one that partially breaks MSNBC out of the FNC mold.

I think this hits the nail on the head for me as the root of the Fox hysteria. Many liberals honestly feel that a news channel "slanted to the right" cannot be a reliable news source. Speaking as a libertarian / conservative on most things, I do not have this same view of networks that are "slanted to the left." For example, NPR leans left on many fronts but is a wonderful news source. BBC would be considered far left in this country, and they are a reliable source source. There are countless stories and anecdotes regarding the prevalence of self-proclaimed liberals who work in TV network news, yet most of the product they produce is "reliable." Do they miss stories or fail to ask certain questions because they are liberal? Yes. Does this mean that their news is unreliable? Most of the time, no.

I wish that we would let networks (and newspapers) be liberal or conservative or socialist or centrist or whatever, and be honest about it. Then we could let the market decide who are "reliable sources" when it comes to news. Newspapers 100 years were organs of political parties...maybe a little more open partisanship wouldn't be a bad thing. Look at the United Kingdom press for example. If someone here posts a link from the Guardian and I respond with a link to the Telegraph, we all know what biases those papers tend to have. If we let network news follow the same model, it would give liberals and conservatives both the advocacy that they want.

A challenge to those who seem (to me at least) to be getting their talking points from Media Matters or wherever. Watch the nightly news with Brit Hume on Fox a few times. Then tell us how the rightward bias prevented you from getting the story. I don't see it.

Just one cotton-pickin' second! If you hadn't snipped my post, or if you had kept reading, you would have also noticed that I said more than that. I also said:





Since this statement was a response to a post by me, please allow me to pipe in here and say that I have ...



... I have been ...



... and I do.

edit: typo

BoF said it well when he said "There is no 1:1 correlation between what is popular and what is quality in TV news..."

The Columbia Journalism Review in 2003 addressed this very issue of cable news ratings and declining quality in the article (well worth reading):

CABLE WARS: In a Desperate Race For Ratings, the Public Falls Behind

From the article:

"Even though CNN runs second to Fox in the ratings, it is number one in credibility among all television news sources — broadcast or cable — according to a Pew Research Center poll released in August. Thirty-seven percent of Americans who have an opinion on the matter say they believe "all or most" of what CNN tells them. MSNBC gets 28 percent and FNC 24 percent. Isaacson, who took over the reins at CNN in July 2001, is happy to expand on that. "Just because you're getting the highest rating," he says, "doesn't mean you're doing the right thing. Ratings don't necessarily translate into money or success or respectability or good journalism. I could get extremely good ratings by putting on every car chase, plus wrestling and SpongeBob."

"Robert Lichter, president of the Washington-based Center for Media and Public Affairs and a paid consultant to Fox, says: "I've never been able to figure out how competition makes cars better and television news worse." He means that the struggle to grab viewers is currently dragging the whole cable news environment down."

Sorry, Bikerdad, but your earlier comment to BoF said "Why do I get the impression that you and everybody else (save Sleeper) who has posted previously believe, quite erroneously I might add, that there's a direct 1:1 correlation between popularity and LACK of quality?" Well, maybe not a direct 1:1, but it seems that a paid consultant to Fox News believes something right along those lines.

THAT attitude is what's wrong with this thread.

Proposition #1: A "reliable news source" will endeavour to be factually correct.

Proposition #2: No news source is either omniscient, nor capable of transmitting to others the fullness of information on any single significant topic.

Absent dispute regarding both the above propositions with vis a vis Fox News, we can only conclude that Fox News is a reliable news source. Its choice of material to cover, its choice of perspective to present, may not be your cup of tea, but unless the information it presents is factually wrong, you cannot conclude that it is unreliable.

I disagree.

Take for instance our intelligence on Iraq war. If I have (just a hypothetical) say 20 pages of intelligence reporting Iraq has WMD. Let's say I have 40 pages of intelligence showing Iraq doesn't. Whether Iraq does or does not have WMD is contested. If I show only the 20 pages of work that bolsters the idea Iraq has WMD, is my information reliable?? How can contested information be reliable.

Thus is the same with a network that blatantly swings to the right. Also, it isn't a matter of giving both sides, and then saying you decide. I know many will say what's wrong with that... so let me give an example.

Right now I am watching Hannity and Colmes. They just showed a clip of the kid that died at the little boot-camp prison. So one side is saying the doctor said he had the sickle cell trait disorder, while the other side had a doctor report saying there is no way this death could be Sickle cell related.

So both sides are presented... fair, right??? Wrong!!!! Reliable and responsible journalism is to find out which is true, then make a news segment. Inform us!!!!! That is the media's job, unless like pro wrestling... it is simply entertaining.

I know about this subject because my son has a closely related trait called "C" trait. A trait only means that one has to be careful with who they partner with, because if they create a baby with someone else who has the trait.... that baby could possibly have the actual disorder.

Basically if BOTH parents have sickle cell trait that baby has a 1/4 chance of having the sickle cell disorder. Having the trait... does nothing to a person.

A minute amount of research would have shown this, so why even present this other possibility?? So I don't think this is laziness, I think it is purposeful.
Because simply put that is the nature of Faux News. and that is why they are unreliable. When they are not cherry picking, they are simply there to entertain us, not inform us... and that also explains why they are #1