All I have been hearing lately from the left is how horrible the Fox News channel is at reporting news. With most in the left calling it Faux News.

But if Fox News is so horrible how come it is rated number one among cable news programs and has 9 of the 10 top listed cable news programs for 2005(Nielsen Ratings)

Questions for debate:

Is Fox News a reliable news source?

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


Edited to add - fixed title typo per posters request.

If the success of Jerry Springer and shows like Married with Children have taught us anything, it is that there is little to no link between the QUALITY of a show, and its POPULARILY.

I don't see why the facts you have listed above in any way contradict those who decry its unreliability and bias.



In the last 4 years FoxNews has loudly reported over 40 major conclusive finds of large scale weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Despite the fact that every one of these has turned out to be false or a hoax, they have pmade only 17 quiet, end-of-show retractions.

So we have two problems. One is a news show that has made 17 retractions on one subject in jusy 4 years, thats a heck of a lot. The second is the fact that despite the fact that they were clearly demonstrated wrong in the remainder of cases, they felt no need to correct their error.

Thats just one topical example. Sounds staggeringly unreliable to me...



Seems like a pretty obvious answer. As Americans in the last 6 years have swung to the right, so have their tastes and opinions. So they watch more right-wing oriented shows and news. Hardly a surprise...

I did not know about this... Is there a link where I can see the data on this? Also were these stories reported by the AP and then broadcast by Fox, or were they broken by Fox Exclusively?

Aren't two of the top rated programs watched on TV also both wrestling? Doesn't really lend much to the prestige of being rated top level

Is Fox News a reliable news source? If you remember their bias is to the right, i guess so. Just like remebering the left bias of stations like cnn filters their content as well.

Why has Fox News gained so much viewership since it became a main stay among cable news programs?Fox was able to not only feed a conservative anti liberal niche but also brought entertainment to their programming as well. with shows like hannity and that pasty albino fellow who always goes on about how he hates the french FOX successfully added a way for certain people with a dislike of liberals, non americans etc to feed their hate by watching these shows do their best to denigrate opposing viewpoints and throw in regular blame game accusations of treason and "you are destroying America".

Its kind of like they merged the WWE with a news broadcast.

My best advice is to just avoid all TV and radio news and do your own research.

You actually asked three questions, not two.

But if Fox News is so horrible how come it is rated number one among cable news programs and has 9 of the 10 top listed cable news programs for 2005(Nielsen Ratings)

I'll attempt to answer the question underpinning your thread.

There is no 1:1 correlation between what is popular and what is quality in TV news or any other field.

As of 2005, Britney Spears had charted 17 Billboard hits. On the other hand, an acclaimed jazzman of giant proportion, John Coltrane, never had a charted hit.

Is Spears popular. Clearly, yes as measured by her Billboard success. Is she good or does she produce quality work? Well, that's more subjective. Personally, I think she and her work are crap.

My thoughts on FNC are similar. One can achieve great success by gearing things to the lowest common denominator.

I agree with all the above, not much else to be said.

I'm not sure how you can feel that the popularity of a TV program makes it of any REAL value to society.

I guess Howard Stern being #1 on the Best Sellers for several months with his book entitles him to a pulitzer?

This is just my gut feeling watching Fox, but it seems amateurish and provoking. One of the most disgusting things I've ever seen was Fox News playing classical music to the bombing of Baghdad. Nice stuff, and they brag about being "good Americans"?

When more than 3/4s of the American population thinks Iraq hit the twin towers, is there any question to why Fox News is #1?

Is Fox News a reliable news source?
Reliable on what scale? Against an absolute measure, or relative to other news sources? If the former, then no, its not reliable. In fact, on an absolute basis, none of the major, medium or minor news sources, from the wire services, major networks, cable networks, major newsmagazines and newspapers, small town papers, public access newscasts, etc, etc are 'reliable'.

On a relative scale, from what I've seen, Fox is as reliable or more so than its cable news competitors and broadcast competitors.

Why has Fox News gained so much viewership since it became a main stay among cable news programs?
Because its providing a different perspective from the news divisions of the 4 broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS) and competing cable news outlets.

Source, i.e., prove it.

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? Perhaps it is the elitist condescension emanating and penumbramating from your keyboards?

Grace and peace, BD

I will help a brutha out- that number "3/4 of Americans believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11" has gone up and down, but there are several polls to back this up:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...5¬Found=true

Hussein Link to 9/11 Lingers in Many Minds

By Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, September 6, 2003; Page A01

Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this.

Sixty-nine percent of Americans said they thought it at least likely that Hussein was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to the latest Washington Post poll. That impression, which exists despite the fact that the hijackers were mostly Saudi nationals acting for al Qaeda, is broadly shared by Democrats, Republicans and independents.

But i think that has to do more with Cheney and co's deliberate attempt to link them more than fox, though Fox is clearly no more than a propaganda tool for the neo-cons- so linkage is quite easy as well!

Now- if you really SOLELY on Fake-er-Faux news for your <ahem> "news"

then
The extent of Americans' misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions. These variations cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographic characteristics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the demographic subgroups of each audience."

Almost shocking was the extent to which Fox News viewers were mistaken. Those who relied on the conservative network for news, PIPA reported, were "three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions. In the audience for NPR/PBS, however, there was an overwhelming majority who did not have any of the three misperceptions, and hardly any had all three."

Full report:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Ira...a_Oct03_rpt.pdf


So- Bikerdad= there is some veracity that if you listen to "brainy liberal" NPR and PBS- you are most likely to be well informed and have real information about news sources- and if you listen to faux- well, you are the opposite of that NPR/PBS audience.

So yes- brain dead America definately makes Faux popular!

In the entire Faux line up- you have really only two shows that even come close to having any intellectual satire in them- family guy and the Simpsons.

Yep, settin' the bar pretty high there too LOL


To me- it is no wonder GW is cutting education while increasing thier expenses- gotta keep America ignorant if we want to keep re-electing republicans!

While I agree with pretty much everything that was posted above, I also wanted to point out that Fox carefully built its image as the ONLY alternative to "mainstream liberal media" news sources such as CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, PBS, etc. And what I learned about TV advertising is that if you push the message persistently enough, it's going to stick. So even if only 25 percent of adult viewers buy their message about "liberal media" and stick to "fair and balanced" Fox, and the rest is going to be dispersed between half a dozen of other news networks, Fox is going to come out on top.

In addition to that I wanted to add that Fox is not much worse than the majority of other news outlets in United States, particularly "cable news", IMHO. CNN is horrible, MSNBC is only marginally better. The lion's share of "news reporting" now goes into dissection of crime scenes, teen disappearances and child molestations. If one is interested in international news, US networks are useless. Lucky you are if you'll catch a 30 second mention at the end of the hour.
Foreign networks are much, much better at this. Many networks do "in depth" reports about news stories, lasting 10-15 minutes each.

That's nice, but that's not what Red Cedar said, to whit "When more than 3/4s of the American population thinks Iraq hit the twin towers. There is a huge difference between "something to do with" and "hit." Given the new evidence resulting from the analysis of the massive volume of documents and data we captured in Iraq, there's little doubt that Iraq may (which, btw, is a synonym for "likely" the standard in the WaPo article) have had some involvement, which doesn't even address the Czech intelligence and other known meetings between Al-Qaeda and Saddam's regime. Just for the record, I don't make a claim one way or the other, and frankly, consider it to be a moot point at this stage.

Noooo, if you listen NPR and PBS, you won't be any better informed than the Fox News listener. If you want to be informed, you'll listen to both.

WTF does Fox Broadcast have to do with this topic? The question is focused on Fox News. Something that hasn't escaped those of us you so eloquently decry as "brain dead." But hey, thanks for proving my point about elitist condenscension.

Now, I do agree with English Horn's less than flattering take on the excessive tabloid volume on our news media, but as a counterpoint, we have a lot more outlets.

As per the script, the liberal love child of media reports......the infamous PIPA is trotted out. Google PIPA and FNC, and you will garner thousands of hits. All linking the same report of course, but that is compelling enough for most people it seems.
Lesser linked, at least by liberal blogs, is the red headed step child of reports.......A Measure of Media Bias, by Tim Groseclose, Department of Political Science, UCLA and Jeff Milyo, Department of Economics, University of Missouri.
I previously cited this study on an earlier media bias thread. I don't necessarily give the study an enormous amount of weight compared to the PIPA report, because the methodology is different, but I find it interesting that just as bias is in the eye of the individual, so is the weight given to different studies, depending on whether you agree with the outcome.

Is Fox News a reliable news source?
Since many stories have their start on the AP, Knight-Ridder, AFP or Reuters wire, FNC is just as reputable as the other infotainment cable 'news' channels.

Why has Fox News gained so much viewership since it became a main stay among cable news programs?
Like them or not, FNC does cover stories that other outlets do not, and people by and large want to see that coverage. If one wishes to be truly informed, then one outlet is not going to suffice, no matter what that outlet is.

Is Fox News a reliable news source?

It's not something I rely on. I don't think it's much worse than other cable news channels.

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

Patriotism. In surveys, most Americans say they are patriotic, and Fox News caters to them. When there's a conflict between objectivity and patriotism, you'll find Fox on the side of patriotism, surrounded by flags and soaring eagles.

Consider the Abu Ghraib story. When CBS and the New Yorker first ran the photos of humiliated, naked Iraqi prisoners, everyone was shocked and appalled. But most journalists immediately assumed the worst: how could this be linked to Alberto Gonzalez's "torture memo"? What did Rumsfeld know and when did he know it, etc. Fox, on the other hand, would play up the angles that put the American military in a better light: the soldiers involved had not claimed that they were acting under orders; when interrogated, they seemed ashamed of their actions. Fox commentators would note that the Army had been investigating the prisoner abuse for months, and ask "Why is CBS handing our enemies a propaganda victory by publicizing these pictures?"

A lot of people seem to like the second approach better.



Thanks for the link to that report. I'd like to see a survey that included some other questions -- I think the misinformation gap would run the other way on them. For example, I suspect that NPR/PBS listeners would be more likely to believe:

The CIA trained or funded Osama bin Laden during the Soviet-Afghan war.

The US provided Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war.

The US was a major supplier of other weapons to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.

The US used "illegal chemical weapons" in the battle of Fallujah. (Common misreporting of white phosphorous.)

I just wanted to add to this point because I don't really watch much TV news for anything other than entertainment and I consider all of the more personality based news shows such as O'Reilly, Blitzer, Dobbs intolerable.

But I will say that DTOM has a very good point here because I will tune into Fox for just that reason. They are linked with Sky News so they will have far better coverage and info on European and even more specifically UK , news events.

Noooo, not exactly. I used to get my daily capsule of right-wing nonsense from Joe Scaborough on MSNB. Although Scarborough still provides some of this, he seems to have gotten bogged down in Natalee Holloway and the guy who fell, jumped or was pushed off a cruise liner. It is my understanding that FNC has covered these stories extensively. The new kid on MSNBC's block, former Fox girl Rita Cosby, is wallowing in the same mud puddle as Scarborough.

Yeah, Scarborough has been spending too much time, IMHO, on "dramatic" but insignificant (in the big picture) stories recently. Greta over on Fox devotes her entire show to these "tabloid" crime stories, which is the reason why, if I'm watching Fox at the time, I turn the channel as soon as she comes on.

I agree. The one thing that I can't stand is the bias in programming. I would prefer all news sources to be unbiased and not try to spin news. Just give us the truth, or what comes as close to an unspinned version of the facts.

IMHO, Fox is the worst at spinning news. They do a news story that is negative to the President and then they spin it to justify his evil actions. Just last night they were talking about Bush's use of "the attack on Liberty building". And they said "yeah sure it's poltiical, but this is serious stuff. Hillary Clinton says he's just fear-mongering, but this is a serious threat we all have to take seriously". They avoided the issue of using fear to gain politically and defended the president by saying democrats didn't consider terrorists attacks as being serious (which of course is a lie).

Fox news is far from fair and balanced. They are THE spin zone. It's like watching the 700 Club without a prayer at the end.

I preferred the news shows on PBS, shows that WERE under less pressure from outside interests and could do a good job at presenting facts with a limited bias.


And I agree that most of the news programs are really just talking head entertainment shows. Larry King, Chris Matthews, Hannity, etc. etc. A bunch of crap IMHO.

People note that college grads:

a) watch at least 3 hours of TV a day
b ) have no clue about geography and geo-politics

Maybe it's because TV doesn't educate people. How often are our news programs educating us on the global scene?? Unless we go to war with a country they are irrelevant. I rarely see any news outside the US, not even about Canada or Mexico. Most news programs do Americans a disservice in educating them.

Maybe the foreign news do a better job because they are gov't run and not pressured to produce entertainment $$$.

As long as you realize that there is a bias involved, FNC can be a very good source of news. It's no different with CNN, just in the opposite direction. They all have an agenda. If I read an article on FoxNews.com that I am interested in, I immediately go to CNN.com to read the same story. Often, you can't even tell it's the same story. Whether it's the "Communist News Network" or "Faux News," realize that they both have target audiences they have to keep happy.

Fox News has a lot of viewers because they have a good lineup, and because they are the only real conservative news source. With a few exceptions, the others lean to the left.

Unless you witness things first hand and make up your own mind, everything you hear is going to have a bias. It's not a matter of finding an unbiased news source, it's a matter of finding the bias you agree with most.


Not sure if this is true, but I've heard that a lot of people use the Daily Show with John Stewart as their news source. As funny as he is, it's still a sad state of affairs if that is true.

Is Fox News a reliable news source?

No, it is not. You might hear news headlines on Fox, but only in the afternoon. Morning shows and evening shows are nearly all commentary shows. They're full of opinions, not news. And even fox's "news" coverage is full of opinions. The anchors give opinions about the news, as they deliver it.

Here's a summary of the 23 page PIPA pdf doc. In my opinion, it really says it all.



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

My guess is that these folks wish to be entertained more than they wish to be informed, and that they want to have their beliefs reinforced. It feels good. Fox is more fun for these folks than PBS.

At the heart of your post is an appeal to popularity. "If it's so popular, how can it be so bad?" Very easily, my man. Very easily.

Still waiting for that source, Vermillion! Do please share. It's been months since I've vivisected one of David Brock's biased bits of "analysis."

As Sleeper mentioned, quoting the AP can get a network in lots of trouble in terms of bias. For example, here is what was reported last week in the AP regarding Joe Wilson and that uranium thing.


vs.


Mainstream, "unbiased" news sources have been making this mistake for three years now. Why is that? Are they incompetent or do they have a bias?

edited to add link to a place where the quote is still in the AP article. It, um, disappeared, from the article I linked. Noted this link is to a pretty freaky site!
---------------------


Yeah, those 3/4 of Americans must be brain dead. Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. A group of terrorists who call themselves "Al Qaeda in Iraq," led by an Al-Qaeda guy who fled Afghanistan, are blowing up American soldiers. Why would anyone think that they had "something to do with" each other? Stupid Americans. Maybe if any network, biased or not, would report in some depth on the issues (which to their credit only NPR really does), Americans would be better informed. But we're in a 5-second soundbyte world...


It would be helpful to have at least a factual claim if you are going to continue to rip George Bush in every single topic here. You know, I was going to point you to what factcheck.org says about false claims of "cutting education" but then I re-re-read your post. Are you saying that Bush is cutting education, while increasing education funding? Some sinister plot to keep people dumb while spending more money?

Why has Fox News gained so much viewership since it became a main stay among cable news programs?
Because they saw the popularity of trash TV and talk radio growing, and found a compelling way to combine them both on-air. They dialed up CNN's "Crossfire" model in a way that resonated with heartland viewers who were accustomed to Jerry Springer. They also provided the only conservative alternative to the 3 broadcast networks and CNN who are centrist / liberal, and PBS who are left / liberal.

Lost in all of this is that their actual news coverage is pretty good. A little taboid-style for me (ala Sky News) but it's refreshing to have a conservative anchor like Brit Hume vs. the other 5 networks' liberal talking heads. And their round-table discussions have a good balance of articulate liberals / moderates together with decent conservatives. With CNN adding Bill Bennett, I hope they balance out more of their discussion as well. A far cry from George Will among 5 liberals every sunday on ABC.

Sold vs. sought. I guess it could be bias. Then again Powell went to the UN and put up maps and said "here are the WMDs!". And Bush said "we don't want to see a mushroom cloud in the US".

Hmmmmm. If the media is trying to slant things, the White House seems to be helping them out.



Actually, this kind of goes back to my signature. When you fling enough XXXX at the wall, some of it will eventually stick. And Cheney sure as heck tried to get people to think Iraq had something to do with 9/11 with his constant "catapulting of propaganda".

The prominence of Al Qaeda in Iraq was pretty much due to Bush's invasion of that country and not prior, when people felt Iraq had attacked us.



Let me help a brotha out:

House passes cuts to student loans

It was in his SOTU speech, he was cutting programs that "were not performing". I guess a bloated military with $500 hammers and bleeding lard out it's ears is "performing perfectly".




Amen. I don't think PBS is necessarily liberal or left. I find their stuff pretty unbiased and very factual. Frontline did a piece about how Clinton was trying to gain American consent to invade Iraq when we suspected they had nukes.

Fox is less reliable than other news sources because it lets the conservative equivalent of political correctness color it's coverage. Take for example their insistence on calling suicide bombers "homicide bombers". From a reporting standpoint that is less informational, any bomb that kills regardless of how it was detonated is a "homicide bomb". Suicide bomb tells you specifically that it was triggered by a human that died in the explosion.

I've spent thousands of hours in newsrooms around the country and I've never met a News Director or editor that was deliberately spinning the news, they all (in my experience) believe they are presenting a balanced view, admittedly some succeed better than others. Fox on the other hand wears its conservative slant on its sleeve as do all Murdoch-owned news outlets. They make no real attempt to be "fair and balanced".

Simply stated, eople watch Fox because they want to be entertained and it takes little thinking skills. Fox news remind me of Dr. Neil Postman's book "Amusing ourselvres to death: Public discourse in the age of show business" -- the front cover has a picture of a family watchng TV, however, none of the people have heads. They are mindless dupes.

I think more American's are simply becoming more docile, they want to watch a news cast that is entertaining (e.g., two muscleheads name-calling and yelling at each other -- like children at a playground), rather than one that takes intellectual discipline (not that other newscast are much better). From a cultural studies perspective, the popularity of Fox news really underscores a dismal picture of the American people -- mindless dupes!

Is Fox News a reliable news source?

Just as reliable as any other news outlet that is out there. When it has news running (which is most of the day), there is little difference between its coverage and any other cable network. The difference is that during primetime, Foxnews has programs that are based on commentators making editorial opinions on the day's news. Foxnews makes no illusions that this programming is obviously opinion driven shows that reflect the day's events instead of straight news. Anyone who looks to these opinion shows for objective news is kidding themselves from the start just as it would apply to pundit shows on CNN or MSNBC. But i still maintain that when it comes to straight news coverage that there is little to no difference between the networks.

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

This is because for so many years, the media has been primrily a liberal entity and there was little difference in whatever station you tuned into. But now ONE channel appears to have a conservative slant and people are in an uproar. And its comments like this:


Which are a blatant show of contempt for conservative thinking and a discouragement of right wing discussion that contribute to the rise of Foxnews. This is a country that is split almost right down the middle in terms of political affiliation and half the country does not want to watch the news and be told they are "mindless dupes."

C'mon Carlito, you can't berate people for failed fact checking and then spout stuff like this. "Al Qaeda in Iraq" didn't exist until October 2004, three years after 9/11, when Zarqawi's group pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda. I wonder why Al Qaeda was even there? Zarqawi prior to the Iraq invasion was considered a competitor to Al Qaeda, not part of it. Even Powell's use of him in the speech to the UN wasn't given to support Saddam's tie to AQ, it was to argue his support of terrorism in general(though even that was spacious given who Zarqawi was fighting). Here is a link to a little more background on him.

I'm aware of Zarqawi's background, but thanks for the link. I'm also aware that frankly we as a society don’t have a real appetite for complex issues. Therefore,

“war on terrorism” – 3 words.
“Iraq is a front in the global war on terrorism” – 10 words.
“axis of evil” – 3 words

“There is a terrorist connection in Iraq. No, it’s not Al Qaeda, but Saddam has welcomed many terrorists who have killed Americans, Africans, Jews and Europeans over the years. Guys like Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, yada yada. He also has some weapons and weapons programs, but he’s hiding them, lying about them, and jiving the UN inspectors. We think that Hussein, a sadistic psychopath, might, in a worst-case scenario, give his weapons to terrorists. Therefore, we’re taking him out pre-emptively as a matter of policy just to make sure. OK. That happened, our enemy – again calling themselves Al-Qaeda – moved into Iraq to fight us.”
– I could go on, but it wouldn’t change anyone’s response to poll questions, because ABC and CNN and Fox News only played the first 4 words of this paragraph*. Then they did a poll about it, showing Americans say "there is a terrorist connection in Iraq." See what I mean?

A roundabout way of saying yes, I know “Al Qaeda in Iraq” didn’t exist until 2004. And yes I know that Americans thought he had something to do with 9/11 before then. But they are not entirely wrong depending on how you define the “war on terror.” And even if you say that they are completely wrong, I’d say that it’s all of our faults as a society, not just the cowboy Boosh, due to our own attention spans. I think that rbb was a little over the top calling us “mindless dupes,” but many of us are on our way. Of course, every time we call the American people dumb or dupes they seem to show us how wrong we are one way or another.

*edited to add - this is a hypothetical imaginary paragraph, just to be clear.

lederuvdapac, you made a thoughtful post, but I so disagree with everything you've just stated, that I hope you won't mind if I address each point that you made here.



Seriously, consider for a moment what you've just said. A statement such as this is irrational on it's face, as it invites comparison between FNC, and EVERY other news entity in existence. Do you really believe that FNC is just as reliable as ANY other news outlet? Read the links elsewhere in the thread. Is FNC as reliable as PBS? As any other entity? Evidence suggests otherwise. Seriously, pick another entity, and we'll compare. I would like to do this, as it would be an instructive exercise. Let's start a new thread. FNC will only hold up well against non-entities, like the Daily Show. It's not a slam against Conservatism to say this. Although others have made that mistake. No, Fox really is that bad.



I disagree. FNC newscasters tend to give on air-opinions more so than other networks.



No, actually Fox does make illusions. Nonstop, we hear "fair and balanced." ... "We report, you decide." ... etc. Fox doesn't make it clear that these are opinion driven shows. Fox's straight news programs, are in fact, "opinion driven shows!" The entire network is predominately opinion driven. Go the the website. Look at the schedule. Start with Midnight and look at the 24-hour cycle. Print it out. Write "opinion" or "news analysis" beside Hannity and Colmes, and "The Factor" ... etc. Write "news" beside the news coverage shows. You're going to get mostly opinion.




Of course. However, you will get more news on CNN or MSNBC, than you will on Fox.




I believe that there is, in fact, a big difference. And if you'd like to explore this, I'd love to open up a thread that compares Fox with another network. Any other network, any day, any time range. It's quite easy to list the opinions represented on Fox during "news" coverage. On other networks, it simply doesn't exist to the same degree it does on Fox.



Actually, I can demonstrate how all cable news networks have a conservative slant. If you're going to make a statement like that, and if we're going to debate it, I'd like to know what you mean by "conservative slant." Your statement about the media being "primarily a liberal entity" [sic]... (actually, the media is made up of entities. It is not a single entity) may have been true in the 70's, but not really since then.

To prove my point, can you name a single liberal television pundit of any consequence, whom is as well known as Chris Matthews? Brit Hume? Bill O'Reilly? Tim Russert? Sean Hannity? Scarborough? And on and on and on? Any? Not a "guest." Not an occasional commentator. Not an author that shows up sometimes. Are there any? Are there as many?



Your quote of that post is kind of bizarre, because it doesn't address the reality of Fox News. It addresses something else. Throw a rock and you'll hit a derogatory dismissive statement directed at "the other side." It really has nothing to do with why anyone would turn to Fox News. Left and Right are both full of that.

For a blatant show of contempt for liberal thinking ... look at any week's best seller list. Or turn on Fox.



I really have no idea where this notion came from. Right wing discussion predominates every corner of the media!



I even disagree with this statement, which is neither here nor there: it really has nothing to do with Fox News being so bad. But since you brought it up, the country isn't split down the middle in terms of political affiliation. You left out those that aren't affiliated politically. For example, in the last national election, the result was:

45% didn't show up

28% voted for Bush

27% voted for Kerry

1% (or thereabouts, ... or whatever it was) voted for other

Too often we hear about "half of America" ... and this simply isn't true.

Furthermore, when folks are polled about issues, a majority, the moderate majority, have nuanced positions. Polarization isn't true.



I think Ann Coulter and the whole gang at FNC are too busy playing offense, to be worrying much about that.

I can't resist throwing a little tinder on the fire, but you did ask. You honestly think Russert is on the right??
No conservative that I know would claim Mathews as being on their side. Though to be fair, many liberals don't care for him either, calling him Tweety. You may have forgotten Couric, Lauer and company if you care to place them in the company of journalists, I for one do not.
But coming in as the newscaster most beloved by liberals......Keith Olberman. KO as he's known to his legion of leftward fans, never misses an opportunity to bash a conservative.
All in all I think FNC does lean to the right, but it's transparent, and if you don't care to get information from them, you have the choice not to.

It is hardly transparent DTOM unless you are in denial. An entire movie has been created documenting this, Media Matters routinely conducts studies proving this and then you can pick virtually any example as niftydrifty did in his post and show this, every single commentary show they have is blatantly and 100% right wing.

As a recent example, during one of their "news" programs the on air personalities showed Rev Lowrey speaking at King's funeral and making his controversial comments. They then edited out the applause afterwards and commented on the fact that no one was applauding! Real transparent.

Your first sentence makes no sense whatsoever, unless you have found a novel definition of the word transparent. Your second sentence pre-validates me to use the Media Research Center as a rebuttal if I wish, because they are just as biased as Media Matters and Outfoxed.
And you contradict your own opinion-dressed-up-as-fact when you claim that every single commentary show they have is blatantly and 100% right wing. You may not care for Hannity's pasty sidekick, nor reputable journalist Juan Williams, self described and proud liberals such as Ellen Ratner and Susan Estrich, or FAIR co-founder Jeff Cohen...........but I have a gut feeling that by virtue of their participation at FNC, they might take issue with your statement. And it's entirely possible that they would have a better angle than you or I.
It's strange that a network that employs about as many liberals as other networks could be 100% right wing. I guess that public school math curriculum hasn't helped me much.

Let's just walk down their programming lineup shall we?

Day Schedule
12 am - special report with Brit Hume (News mixed in with right wing commentary) Go read some of the things he has said on his show in wikipedia for further proof.

1 am - Your World with Neil Cavuto (Right wing, for more info check out the speaking engagement topics he entertains)

2 am - Hannity and Colmes (I hardly think I even need to say anything about this program)

3 am - On the Record with Greta ( can't call this one quite yet since she has been all halloway all the time for a while and other fluff stories)

4 am - O'Reilly Factor (no comment necessary)

5 am - Neil Cavuto again...

6 am to 1 pm - Various news coverage

1 pm - Dayside (fluff news)

2 pm - Fox News Live (news)

3 pm - Studio B w/ Shepard Smith (typically fluff news pieces)

4pm - Neil Cavuto again

5 pm - Big story with John Gibson (news mixed in with conservative commentary)

6 pm - Brit Hume again (see above)

7 pm - Shepard Smith (fluff again)

8 pm - O'Reilly

9 pm - Hannity and Colmes

10 pm - Greta again

11 pm - O'Reilly again


So DTOM, aside from a few breaks for news (often mixed in with conservative commentary or slanted toward the right as far as coverage or angle) where exactly are the liberal commentary shows on this network? That all looks pretty right wing to me.

I don’t have cable but when I do see these stations (Fox, CNN) I just think of them as entire channels devoted to tabloids like “Inside Edition”, etc. The script is not unlike Coke Vs. Pepsi – only replaced by what they call “politics” – Liberal vs. Conservative – terms that have absolutely no meaning in this context.

It’s not that I have a problem with non-objective news reporting (Fox News is “conservative” and CNN is “liberal” – right?), it’s that a real argument is not even presented. The simplest one is. So anyone who relies on these sources for news can easily pick a side based on what is presented. It’s not unlike pro-wrestling, or sports-entertainment. It’s not news, it’s news-entertainment.

Corporate-owned news in general is always flawed because of high-dollar advertising interests – cable news is just the most extreme example. There is absolutely no time for anything outside the corporate-dictated status quo.

And since I don’t watch, none of this would bother me if it didn’t inform so much of the real-life public discourse. This kind of pro-wrestling mentality affects people who don’t have the time or inclination to look outside of the 5 media megaconglomerates or even outside cable news-entertainment for information. So when I try to have a conversation about politics with my brother-in-law, he doesn’t debate me, he perceives me as “A Liberal” and tosses out slogans such as “why don’t you go there and live”, talks about France, ketchup, Hollywood liberals and whatever else he’s supposed to be thinking about this week, dictated by News Corporation, AOL/Time Warner and the like.

That's exactly why we like it!!!
Actually, I'd venture to ask exactly what conservative commentary comes on MSNBC? I mean.. come on CJ...
The Abrams Report
Hardball
Countdown
Rita Cosby
Scarborough Country
Citizen Journalists

It's just a different side to "typical" American journalism. Not necessarily wrong... just different.

most of it? half of it?

Citizen Joe, is kinda obvious.

Chris Matthews, is rather openly overt when he pimps for the administration.

seriously, it's a matter of relative degree. conservatives are going to think MSNBC is too liberal, and Liberals are going to think MSNBC is too conservative.

LOL. Joe is a conservative and Matthews is a liberal. What do you expect? He was a former democratic staffer to Tip O'Neill, one of the MOST liberal congressman in our nation's history.

MSNBC is liberal, no question. Between Matthews and the ex-ESPN Olbermann, they are solidly in the liberal camp.

Fox is moderately conservative. O'Reilly is more of a populist than a "conservative" anyway. Hannity is conservative but they balance his show with Colms.

The rise of the conservative media and conservative alternative media outlets (talk radio) has been a good thing in my view. Prior, the liberal networks had a near monopoloy on the news and succeeded on excluding many traditional points of view.

Now, people have a choice. If they want liberals, they can watch CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, or PBS. If they want to hear some conservative views, they can watch Fox or listen to talk radio.

I am, after all, pro-choice.

Alert the media. I agree with lordhelmet.

There's nothing inherently wrong with a newspaper, magazine or in this case, a news channel that has a conservative viewpoint. More choice, not less is what I favor.

On my cable channels, I have CNN, CNN Headline News, MSNBC and FOX News clustered one after another. I'd rather watch Bill O' Reilly than Larry King and I'd rather watch Keith Olberman over O'Reilly or the horrendous Nancy Grace.

The success of FOX can only be good for other networks IF it forces them to work harder and put more emphasis in gathering news and disseminating information. The success of FOX can only be bad if other networks try to play "follow the leader" and emulate them with similar formats. People when given a choice between the real thing and a wannabee will usually go for the real thing.

Trying to out-fox FOX News is a losing strategy. If liberals want to seriously challenge FOX, then they should support liberal media and push ALL the networks to be committed to news and not just celebrities, sleaze and sensationalism.

I'm not a fan of FOX News, but nobody is making me watch it either. If their success forces other news networks to step up their game then that's not a bad thing. What is a bad thing is if all the networks think all they need to do is become a FOX clone and they will be successful.

Thanks for walking us down the FNC lineup, but you haven't exactly solidified your point. Let's examine our respective positions. I claim that FNC leans to the right, you claim that FNC is 100% right wing. I presented a list (probably incomplete) of notable and self described liberals who either appear as panel members or as frequent guest hosts and analysts on the commentary programming that you listed. You have seemingly ignored them in favor of your view.
I think that FNC is primarily more politically oriented than the other cable news outlets, and they lean to the right, but you still are treated to the viewpoint of mainstream liberals. Since the other networks feature presumably biased hosts such as Olberman, Cafferty, Matthews and Stephenopolous, I don't view FNC as an aberration. It is almost comical but ultimately perplexing why many on the left seem so insulted by the network.

I think FNC's popularity lies in the fact that many Americans like to watch controversy and tension. Some of FNC's programs are like the Jerry Springer of political debate, and the Jerry phenomenon sells.

Geez.

You go on and on about Fox leaving out facts then go and reference Outfoxed

Talk about bias.

That movie was a great work of half-truths and out-right lies - or have you forgotten that USA Today pretty much destroyed this 'mockumentary' by showing how the director purposely left out facts that didn't jive with the crap he was spewing (just as he did with the movie about Wal-Mart)?

Edit:



http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselect...-outfoxed_x.htm

Always amuses me when those on the Left who claim to champion 'truth' constantly (and knowingly) reference a film that has little truth in it.

It shouldn't be perplexing to you. It should be quite clear. The newscasters regularly espouse opinions. Those opinions are always (as in 100%) in favor of the Bush administration. These opinions tend to mirror the current Republican Party talking points. That annoys us. It annoys us because we want to be informed of news, not what the current marching orders are.

You refer to the reaction to this as comical. But please, carefully consider the impetus.



Mainstream? yes. Challenging? No.

When a real liberal like Eric Alterman destroys Ann Coulter in an, ahem, debate on Hannity and Colmes, he isn't invited back.

You will never see a real Liberal on Fox News. Just the mainstream mild or hysterical ones. The ones that can be reined in easily and/or mocked.

I watched Fox recently while Al Sharpton spoke with Bill O'Reilly about the Hillary Plantation thing. O'Reilly walked all over him.

Put Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Seymour Hersh, or anyone on that level (in other words, anyone that can debate in a non-shouting-match style with substance) next to anyone on Fox News Channel. What would happen? Fox would lose control of their message. It wouldn't match their agenda. These people and others like them appear on other networks. Why not on Fox? I think we all know why.

There we go with that 100% number again, you really must never watch Fox News. Why bother wasting bandwidth to claim something is 100% unless it can be proven? I'm sorry to speak against the script but I would be just as valid in saying that CNN is 100% liberal. I don't believe that to be true, but I'm also not the one making these left field claims. In every thread about media bias I get argumentative replies, not because I believe FNC leans to the right, but because I don't ascribe to the 'it's 100% right wing' mantra. Strange.

What is ultimately perplexing to me is this. Contrary to your post above, liberals can get their marching orders from a plethora of sources. You don't need to rely on FNC, thus I still find the reaction comical.


I expected this to come about as soon I had typed my previous post. When confronted with the fact that self ascribed liberals appear quite regularly on FNC, the defense is that they are not 'real' liberals. Fine, for what it's worth, I don't believe the conservatives that you rail against on FNC are 'real' conservatives.



That might carry more weight if the above mentioned 'real' liberals frequently appeared on other cable news channels. Since they don't (with the exception of Hersh hawking his books) what is the point? Aren't CNN and MSNBC just as biased because they don't feature your flavor of liberal?

DTOM, are you aware that in your rebuttal you have brought up something else, in response to every single point, rather than sticking with the points themselves? I just want you to be aware of this.



No, it's not the "100% right wing mantra." That's not what I said at all. That's what you said. It's "100% of opinions expressed by newscasters of the Fox News Channel are rightward."

The appropriate way for you to rebutt my statement would be for you to produce a single leftward opinion expressed by a Fox News Newscaster. I'm speaking of the news coverage. Not lonely Colmes. When you repeat something you've said before, which kinda resembles something I just said, and attribute it to me, it is strange. Strange, indeed. Post Fox News personalities' lefty opinions here. I'll be waiting. I won't hold my breath.



Huh? Talking points are repeated on Fox mixed in with the News. That's why I don't like Fox. Your mention of Liberals and their marching orders is a logical fallacy, a "so what, they are too" kind of a statement.



Another non-logical point. You see, I'm speaking of the Liberals that appear on Fox, and that's what I'm referencing here. It has nothing to do with the nature of the Conservatives on Fox, or your opinion of them.

You're right, the 'real' Liberal thing is my defense. So if you are referring to my point, can we talk about my point, and not something totally different?

I was changing channels on Fox tonight, and I saw it again. Tony Snow speaking with a rambling Democratic Congressman, who couldn't make 2 and 2 into 4. I do watch it a little bit every day. And I always seem to catch moments like this. Hmmm.



I said "these people and others like them." My statement is accurate. You've twisted my words again! And once again, you're pointing at something else entirely in response to my point. Why is the nature of the other channels relevant to you when I'm discussing the nature of Fox? Are they biased too? Sure! But one channel at a time, friend.

Fox News is really really bad. There, I said it. Will your response to this paragraph be that CNN is bad, too? Or that I haven't watched Fox? Or that it depends on what the definition of bad is? Or will it be a strawman argument addressing something that I didn't say?

Nifty, are you aware that you have only made opinionated claims in your post? It's not as if you've presented any hard facts that we can dissect.....
The 100% number was meant to be attributed to the claims made by both you and Cube Jockey, sorry if you misunderstood that, even though I referenced it in response to CJ in the previous post, I thought you might have read that......
You can claim that I have twisted your words, if that gets you through the day. But surely you must admit that when you post strictly opinion, but state it as if it were fact, responses to your post might not be as cut and dry as you like. You claimed that FNC newscasters espoused opinions during newscasts that were Republican talking points 100% of the time. Why aren't you backing that up? Why is it up to me to disprove you when you made the claim. That's a bit of an odd way to debate.
I'm not sitting here claiming that FNC is neutral or left leaning. The party line on the left is that FNC is a wing of the Republican party, yet can only use biased propaganda to prop it up. Why is an opinion that differs (and not even close to 180 degrees) threatening?

But wait, this gets better.......

You claim that 'marching orders' are preached by Fox, but I'm making the logical fallacy??? You can see where I receive some comedic value from whole debate now can't you?

OK, we've established the fact that you don't commiserate with the mainstream leftwing guest hosts and analysts that appear on Fox. When I say that I don't exactly root and cheer for the conservatives on Fox, thats non-logical? It's the same sentiment that you expressed!!! Oi vey....I need a drink......

This debate should essentially boil down to 'Don't like Fox? Then don't watch Fox'. I still don't understand why the left gets it's undies in a twist over it.

I mean why does wrestling do so well in the ratings over real sports like say hockey?

Sensationalim.

People do not want news they want some in your face commentator telling you whose evil and whose good in the world.

Fox News is right slanted. has gotten worse over the past months even. The conservative to liberal ratio is vast in difference.

It's a False and Biased network.

Almost everyone who has a show or is a contributor is a conservative.

Tony Snowe, Gibson, O'reilly, Krauthammer, Hume, Oliver North, Judge Napolitano, Kasich, Vister, Most of the clowns who do the morning shows, Krystol, Fred Barnes, Robert Novak, Michelle Malkin, Hannity, Coulter.

The alleged democrats? Juan Williams, ED Hill (she is a conservative democrat), Alan Colmes...handpicked by Hannity, Geraldo who they chose to hurt liberals and then the people who do not show one way or the other (like real journalists)

Shephard Smith, Greta van Susteran, Bill Hemmer.

Anyone who gives an opinion on that show is a conservative though. Liberal ideas are not presented unless a conservative commentator decides to give his own personal and subjective opinion on liberals.

The whole station is geared for conservatives, A true capitalistic venture. To call Foxnews News is a very laughable thing.

CNN is way less biased. Cnn has gotten away from idiotic opinion shows like Crossfire.

Who do you see on CNN present news? Wolf Blitzer, Zain Verjee, Anderson Cooper and Lou Dobbs. All very fair and non-slanted. Dobbs is a known republican but unlike FOXnews contributors puts professionalism before partisanship.

Foxnews is trash news in my opinion. A soapbox for like minded conservative commentators to mold their programs to attack liberals and web convoluted liberal conspiracy theories in which liberal attack traditionalism and promote sinister secular humanism.

Nevre an eye batted towards the powerful and connected religious elements on the right. It's always hollywood or sociologists or scientists or newspapers and college professors trying to brainwash society.

Foxnews would have thrived in the McCarthy era. Giving every paranoid freedom lover a podium to shout down their madness.

Niftydrifty: The sky is blue.
Donttreadonme: So? Sometimes the ocean is blue.
Niftydrifty: I was talking about the sky, not the ocean.
Donttreadonme: Ok, well, that’s only your opinion, because you didn’t give me any evidence.

No, it’s not an opinion. It’s an observation about something that is there. And DTOM, I’m obviously not going to convince you. And if I spend all day posting evidence supporting something that I and others already believe, and that you and others never will, then I’m wasting my time. That’s why I ask you to refute my statement with a single quote. It would be an instructive exercise for you. If what I said is wrong, it should be easy to produce a single quote by a Fox News Anchor stating a lefty opinion during a news show. You didn’t produce one. You can’t produce one. That’s very telling. It’s very telling because my statement is true. So here you are playing this ‘that’s merely your opinion’ game.

(For the record, I would prefer it if no opinions were stated during news coverage. That’s why I watch the PBS newshour. That’s perhaps why I’m among those that were not misled about Iraq.)



Another strawman, DTOM. I said what I said, but here you are referring to “Outfoxed,” which I never mentioned, and asking me why differing opinions are somehow threatening, which I never said. I like differing opinions. That’s why I seek them out. It tune into Fox. I’m just not deluded into believing that Fox is a good source for news. The one sided-opinions during news coverage are what tips me off, that it isn't.



Wow, another one DTOM. You did make logical fallacies, when you made them. I pointed those out. If I make them also, please show me how. It makes no sense to claim that my alleged logical fallacies somehow discredit my ability to reveal yours. Your logical fallacies are now well documented. The comedic value of the debate is totally up to you, of course.



Right, it is non-logical. For several reasons. Whether or not I commiserate with the opinions of the mainstream leftwing guests on Fox is irrelevant. The point is that there are other leftwing mainstream commentators that are more levelheaded and that won’t be reined in as easily. They are not chosen to appear. That is the point. Also, when you speak about the conservatives on Fox. That is a different sentiment. Because it’s a different subject. Can we please stick with the things that I say?



As long as anyone claims that Fox is a good source for news, then I and others will state that it isn’t. Until the whole world, left/right/or other, sees Fox News for what it really is, here we’ll be, telling ‘em. It’s got nothing to do with panties, DTOM. Um, ok, maybe yours. Why, according to you, should people not watch things they don’t agree with? We’re just doing it in order to make informed, ahem, opinions, DTOM.

*sigh*

Why do you insist that I prove or disprove a claim that you made? Is that how they debate on bizarro world? Any informed human being knows that virtually nothing can be proven as 100%, yet you and others make the lazy argument as to just that. Your 'observations' are exactly what I said they are, opinions. Feel free to believe them to be absolute facts, but everybody doesn't have to subscribe to them, for unless they are universally held, they are opinions.


Your initial claim is the one that is non-logical. You don't get to make the rules across the board concerning who is a real liberal and who is not, you get to make your opinion known. The point in this pointless exchange is that you have, when challenged that liberals appear on Fox, tried to twist that fact into the fallacy that they are not 'real' liberals.


I'll play your game. You stated that marching orders are issued by Fox. Prove it. If you cannot, then your statement is a logical fallacy.

Tell you what, you've convinced me. I surrender. I'll become a Fox hating liberal, strictly because you have stated that Fox parrots the Republican Party line 100% of the time. That should be good enough for me right? You've made an observation/opinion that according to you contains zero probability of error, then accuse others of making logical fallacies. Yep, that should just about convince me and every other mouth breather in the world.

I'm going to become a Fox hating liberal, because it's so much easier than critical thinking

Despite your veiled insults and further logical errors, I’m hanging in there with you, DTOM. I’m not sighing. And there’s really no need to resort to sarcasm. If I didn’t have a case, I might find the need to make sweeping generalizations placing you in the company of “Conservatives that blindly love Fox News.” But I don’t need to do that. And if logic were truly on your side here, you wouldn’t be doing that either. The fact that you do is telling. I’ll simply respond kindly to what you say. And I respond because I care.

You ask a good question. “Why do you insist that I prove or disprove a claim that you made?” The answer to this question is that I am not the only one making claims. If it is my “opinion” that Fox newscasters regularly espouse opinions, and those opinions are always (as in 100%) in favor of the Bush administration, and you come along and disagree with that statement, then you’ve also made a claim. Your claim is that it can’t be true. But I’m not interested in skepticism for the sake of it. Or mathematical probabilities. Or what have you. I’m interested in reality.

My opinion is based on the fact that I have watched Fox. I do watch Fox every day. I’m a news junkie, and it’s nestled on my set right in-between C-span and the other cable channels. I’ve seen the Fox anchors do it. I’ve read FNC transcripts on Lexis Nexis. Your opinion is based on what? That you doubt me? That you consider 100% to be statistically unlikely?

Look at it this way. If I look at the night sky every night for years, and then I come to you and I say, “100% of the stars in the sky look white to me.” Your response might be, “How can that be! Have you catalogued the thousands or millions of stars in the night sky? Every single one? How can you make such a statement?” You’d have a point. It would be difficult, or nearly impossible for me to catalog thousands of stars and to demonstrate to the whole world that 100% of them look white. But I’ve looked. And my statement is based upon what I’ve seen, and what I know.

Now, it’s possible that I could be wrong. There might be one, or even a few, star or stars in the night sky that are red or blue. I might have missed them. The existence of these red and blue stars would support your claim. But I didn’t see them. I’m asking you to show me the one star that supports you claim. Because I looked, many times, and they weren’t there. It would be easy, to prove your claim, if it were true, eh?

So I’ve made a statement (or stated an opinion, according to you, DTOM) about what I know. If I’m wrong, it would be very easy for you to come up with just a single quote by a Fox News anchor stating an opinion that goes against the Bush administration.



DTOM, predictably, you’ve missed the whole point again. You’ve made stuff up. If you want to play my game, play it. Follow thru with my instructive exercise. My game is not what you say it is. My game is what I said it is. And I’ve just generously explained why I think you’ve got it wrong. Furthermore, a true statement without accompanying supportive evidence isn’t a logical fallacy!

Just so that the viewers at home aren’t totally bored with this tedious lesson in logic directed at one person, here are a few of the quotes of which I speak, some of the quotes I’ve seen. The ones that make Fox News so bad, and that speak to the topic. The ones that don’t inform, but instead, mislead. The opinions stated by Fox “News” anchors.

+++++

9/19/2005
Chris Wallace: Senator, I don't think anybody would argue that those ideas [President Bush’s ideas for Gulf Coast reconstruction] aren't good ones, but are they the bold action that's needed to confront persistent poverty?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169708,00.html

Really? No one will argue with Bush’s ideas?

+++++

Reciting the party line talking points, Volume One: Calling it "Partial Birth Abortion."

· CHRIS WALLACE, FOX News Sunday host: "You [Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)] voted against banning partial birth abortions, against the Defense of Marriage Act." (FOX News Sunday, 12/5/04)
· WENDELL GOLER, FOX News White House correspondent: "And he [President Bush] said Kerry's votes against an amendment to ban gay marriage and a ban on partial birth abortion show a major difference in values." (Special Report with Brit Hume, 10/22/04)
· JANE SKINNER, FOX News correspondent: "A federal judge has ruled the ban on partial birth abortion is unconstitutional." (The Big Story with John Gibson, 8/26/04)
· ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX News senior judicial analyst: "How does more taxes, pro-abortion, pro-partial birth abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-regulation, how does that play in these crucial states in the South and in the West, coming out of the mouth of a Democrat?" (The Big Story with John Gibson, 7/7/04)
· BRIT HUME, FOX News managing editor and chief Washington correspondent: "[Senator] John Kerry, who has voted against banning partial birth abortion and has campaigned for abortion rights, has now taken a position agreeing with the central tenet of the anti-abortion unit. Kerry, in an interview with the Dubuque, Ohio [sic: Iowa] Telegraph Herald said, quote, "I believe life does begin at conception." And he said, quote, "I oppose abortion. Personally, I don't like abortion." (Special Report with Brit Hume, 7/6/04)
· GREG KELLY, FOX News correspondent: "These anti-abortion forces, of course, have a friend in the White House. President Bush, who campaigned on a pro-life platform and signed the partial birth abortion ban last year." (Special Report with Brit Hume, 1/22/04)
· MAJOR GARRETT, FOX News general assignment correspondent: "In another historic move, Congress approved a law to criminalize partial birth abortion. The president swiftly signed the first-ever federal restriction on abortion access in 30 years." (Special Report with Brit Hume, 11/26/03)

+++++

Reciting the party line talking points, Volume Two: "Kerry blamed the troops."

TONY SNOW (FOX News Channel and FOX News Radio host, as a guest on The O'Reilly Factor): John Kerry -- the Kerry campaign is not criticizing the president here. They're criticizing our troops because those are the people who were going into the Al Qaqaa facility -- yes, that's its real name, the Al Qaqaa facility -- and what they're saying is, ah, these guys -- you know, they were in such haste to get to Baghdad, they didn't do their job. [FOX News Channel, The O'Reilly Factor, 10/26/03]

+++++

Reciting the party line talking points, Volume Three: "Rove wasn't criticising Democrats"

Brit Hume: "Now it's probably worth noting at the outset here that Rove directed his criticism and his comparison at ... liberals as opposed to conservatives. He never did say Democrats. Democrats seem to have rushed to make themselves the targets of this attack by Rove." [FOX News Channel, The O'Reilly Factor, 6/23/05]

(oops, bonus. Rove did mention Democrats
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...062400097.html)

+++++

are these 100% of the opinions? No. But like I've said, I've never heard a Fox News Anchor dissing the Bush administration. And like I've also said, I believe a news cast would be legitimate if no opinions were expressed. The fact that they tend to be so lobsided is just that much worse.

DTOM, can it be that it is just too difficult for you or anyone to defend Fox News as a valid source of news and information? So, what you are doing here is latching on to these mere technicalities in the statements made by us Fox-hating Liberals? These little technicalities make us “irrational,” while Fox remains a legitimate source of news? It does seem that way.

If I and Cube Jockey had said “mostly” would we have ‘won’?


ps. I believe it was Rush Limbaugh that made the Cheney/Kennedy statement in your signature.

Pardon me while I had a bang my head against the wall moment. The sarcasm was intended, any insults, veiled or otherwise was not. The problem that I have with your logic is this. You have repeatedly made claims that you believe to be true, but cannot or will not prove. Not only do you make these claims about Fox News, but you actually have the audacity to state, not only imply but state as fact that your claim is of the value of 100%. 100% means that there is absolutely no chance that Fox News hosts or personalities ever say anything that is not supportive of President Bush or his administration.
This is illogical on its face. Yet you persist in making this claim. You have moved the goalposts so many times that it is getting hard to follow this line of debate, and I believe we're probably getting off topic. You're reality is not everyone's reality, as you're observation is not the same as everyone else's. But you act as if they are one and the same with statements such as: Until the whole world, left/right/or other, sees Fox News for what it really is, here we’ll be, telling ‘em. This line of debate might even be more intriguing if you were debating a Republican or one who believed that FNC doesn't show any bias. You are stuck arguing with someone who actually admits there is a slant to Fox, just not on the order of magnitude that would get one laughed out of a serious academic debate.


Um......what did I make up? You stated:

I'm not going to digress into some *ahem* instructive exercise while you deflect from the subject again.


Making the claims that you have made, and deflecting when given facts is not latching onto technicalities. You have formed your assertions around them. You have made repeated ad logicam arguments and sweeping generalizations.
Thanks for all of your quotes, but predictably, they don't prove your case. If I post quotes critical of Bush, are they going to convince you? And I do mean critical, not simply posting quotes of current popular terms such as 'partial birth abortion'.

This is probably going to be the last arc posted by me in this circular argument. I feel completely justified in the knowledge that I haven't made any lazy, yet spectacular claims. But I feel reasonable enough to thank you for your discourse and sharing your opinion. I don't think either of us are getting through to the other.......

hi DTOM, agreed. And my sentiments are nearly identical to yours. But, quickly, you just have to know …