Fox news

[cajun]

You libs can say what you will about Fox news channel, but the numbers speak for themselves. They have more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined. Fair and balanced. This was taken from the AP

Through Wednesday, Fox was averaging 2.73 million prime-time viewers in March. MSNBC had 1.16 million and CNN had 1.14 million. The March ratings period ends Friday, and it's doubtful CNN will be able to overcome MSNBC

[The G]

Wheres that BS sign :rofl

[Remphoto]

You can bs all you want but Cajun is right. Fox out rates other cable and some broadcast news blocks. Many people recognize the left bias of mainstream press and that is growing. As bo continues his spending rampage I can see fox getting even stronger. Also msnbc is eating it's young by attacking fellow GE property wnbc. I love it!

[The G]

You can't say Fox News isn't bias with a straight face.

[Remphoto]

You can't say Fox News isn't bias with a straight face.

Absolutely can -- as has been debated ad nauseam it only looks biased to you because you are so steeped in the left-leaning mainstream media and your union propaganda. As previously mentioned, look no further than former network newsman Bernie Goldberg's writings or Brent Bozell's:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/welcome.asp which well-document this.

But you will dismiss this all and go on making Fox New your personal boogie man. If that makes you feel better, have at it. :)

[gtrman66]

Mora Liason and Juan Williams aren't liberal???? Colmes ain't liberal?

I like the balance on Fox. I usually watch the Chris Wallace Sunday show and bounce to Steppy and Meet the Press dueing commercials. Then it's MCLAUGHLIN!!!

[Remphoto]

Mora Liason and Juan Williams aren't liberal???? Colmes ain't liberal?

I like the balance on Fox. I usually watch the Chris Wallace Sunday show and bounce to Steppy and Meet the Press dueing commercials. Then it's MCLAUGHLIN!!!

I like to tune into the other channels, too. It is easy to spot the bias there, but I like to know what the other side is saying. Of course with all channels (including Fox) you should not take everything as gospel as everyone can make a mistake. Sometimes the answer isn't clear, especially early in a story. As you noted, Fox does have Lib contributors and does a better job of bringing in people from both sides of the spectrum for news stories. And unlike the mainstreams, Fox does not faun over BO.

[nelson]

We're all biased, but Fox is clearly the best of the available television news networks. By a mile! The ratings consistently reflect that. Almost everything else on TV is not just "in the pocket" of the left wing movement - they're driving it.

Here are some headlines straight from the current FoxNews.com front page:

Obama: Afghanistan War Will Not Be 'Open Ended
The U.S. will not stay indefinitely in Afghanistan, Obama says, as troops train Afghans to fight Taliban.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/29/gates-reversing-taliban-gains-key-success-afghanistan/

Muslim Women in U.S. Struggle to Balance Western Freedoms and Islamic Culture
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,511275,00.html

Spanish Court Considers Criminal Case Against Ex-Bush Officials
Court has agreed to consider opening a criminal case against six former Bush administration officials, including former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, over allegations they gave legal cover for torture at Guantanamo Bay.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/03/29/spanish-court-considers-criminal-case-ex-bush-officials/

Featured stories referencing an open-ended Iraq war, multiculturalism, and torture allegations.

(Personally, I think Fox News is standard liberal journalism. But they do make an effort not to be as radical as the rest, and as a result Fox is much more trustworthy IMO.)

[The G]

You want a good laugh watch Huckabee's Republican informational, watch when he makes a point and they fan across the audience they all will be shacking their heads in agreement.

Total unbias, ya right.:rofl

(Personally, I think Fox News is standard liberal journalism. But they do make an effort not to be as radical as the rest, and as a result Fox is much more trustworthy IMO.)

Your kidding right ??????????

[Remphoto]

You want a good laugh watch Huckabee's Republican informational, watch when he makes a point and they fan across the audience they all will be shacking their heads in agreement.

Total unbias, ya right.:rofl



Your kidding right ??????????

Huckabee is a commentator (just like MSNBC's Lib Keith Olbermann -- just smarter and classier) and makes no pretense about his position. He is not a newsman. Fox newsmen like Chris Wallace, etc. are fair and balanced. Good God, no wonder you are confused.:)

[The G]

You can call them commentator if you like I think this is a disclaimer. I don't buy this on any news station. They are pushing the agenda of the news station they work for. Look at the lower left of the TV, it says "Fox News"

[The G]

Heres a good one

http://www.outfoxed.org/

[Remphoto]

You can call them commentator if you like I think this is a disclaimer. I don't buy this on any news station. They are pushing the agenda of the news station they work for. Look at the lower left of the TV, it says "Fox News"

Well, many of the cable stations (CNN, MSNBC, etc) have commentators, also. But what is even more insidious is the mainstream stations which present their "newsmen" as supposed unbiased reporters of the news. But they (or their editors) throw their own lefty slant to the stories and the types of stories they cover. A good example is the recent union story which Fox carried. The mainstream press would never air this story because they never question the unions. Also, their news reporters often come with political baggage from former lives in left-wing political circles (Steppy, Chris Mathews, the Late Tim Russert, etc.). But this is old ground, plowed before, G as you well know.:)

[Johnny Dangerously]

You want a good laugh watch Huckabee's Republican informational, watch when he makes a point and they fan across the audience they all will be shacking their heads in agreement.

Total unbias, ya right.:rofl



Your kidding right ??????????
Huckabee's show is a freaking variety show with a bit of a political slant. If you ask me, that show has reduced his stature and pretty much ruled him out as a serious contendor in future elections. I like Huckabee, but that show is just total cheese.

BUT as Rem points out - the actual hard news on Fox has a true balanced approach. No one can accuse Chris Wallace, Sheppard Smith, or Brett Baier of being biased.

I think the telling thing though, is not the anchors themselves, it's the coverage the stations give certain subjects. I used to spend a lot of time in airports and, of course airports tend to have CNN on (especially the one in Atlanta) and I spent quite a bit of time in hotel hospitality suites where MSNBC was on, I just found the difference in coverage between those and Fox news to be staggering.

Here's the true acid test - whenever a politician is involved in a scandal pay attention to whether his/her party affiliation is mentioned on MSNBC or CNN. If it's not and it's probably because the politician's a Democrat, however if it's a Republican they actually lead with "Republican Senator Xxxxx"... If you're honestly seeking the truth try that sometime and see. Conversely, Fox almost always mentions the part affiliation regardless of the party.

[cajun]

http://people-press.org/report/215/news-audiences-increasingly-politicized

[truthteller]

BUT as Rem points out - the actual hard news on Fox has a true balanced approach. .

Leaving aside O'Reilly (with his ludicrous "War on Christmas" canard); Hannity's ideological spewfest; and Glenn Beck's (unintentionally ironic) channeling of Howard Beale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_(film)) - even the "hard news" side of Fox doesn't stack up so well.

Just today: Fox Business' Stuart Varney made the following comment on Rick Wagoner's departure from GM, saying it was:

"the first time in modern history that the government has fired the chief executive of a private corporation."
He must have a remarkably short memory, because the CEO of both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (also both recipients of Govt. largesse) were asked to step aside in September 2008 as part of the bailout agreements.

Also on the very same program host Martha MacCallum trots out the "some people are saying" game, with the remarkable assertion that "Canadian-Style Health Care" helped kill Natasha Richardson, along with a bunch of other misinformation related to healthcare reform from former NY lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey (and previous Hannity guest)- specifically repeating the lie that the Recovery Act:

actually will require doctors to practice cost-effective care and the government will monitor it to make sure they do it

<youtube><object width="320" height="260"><param name="src" value="http://mediamatters.org/static/flash/mediaplayer316.swf"></param><param name="flashvars" value="config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg%3Fflv%3Dhttp://mediamatters.org/static/video/2009/03/27/hannity-20090327-health.flv"></param><embed src="http://mediamatters.org/static/flash/mediaplayer316.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg%3Fflv%3Dhttp://mediamatters.org/static/video/2009/03/27/hannity-20090327-health.flv" width="320" height="260"></embed></object></youtube>

You might think that Fox is "Fair and Balanced" - but they sure as hell aren't "accurate and truthful"

[Remphoto]

Leaving aside O'Reilly (with his ludicrous "War on Christmas" canard); Hannity's ideological spewfest; and Glenn Beck's (unintentionally ironic) channeling of Howard Beale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_(film)) - even the "hard news" side of Fox doesn't stack up so well.

Just today: Fox Business' Stuart Varney made the following comment on Rick Wagoner's departure from GM, saying it was:

"the first time in modern history that the government has fired the chief executive of a private corporation."
He must have a remarkably short memory, because the CEO of both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (also both recipients of Govt. largesse) were asked to step aside in September 2008 as part of the bailout agreements.

Also on the very same program host Martha MacCallum trots out the "some people are saying" game, with the remarkable assertion that "Canadian-Style Health Care" helped kill Natasha Richardson, along with a bunch of other misinformation related to healthcare reform from former NY lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey (and previous Hannity guest)- specifically repeating the lie that the Recovery Act:

actually will require doctors to practice cost-effective care and the government will monitor it to make sure they do it

<youtube><object width="320" height="260"><param name="src" value="http://mediamatters.org/static/flash/mediaplayer316.swf"></param><param name="flashvars" value="config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg%3Fflv%3Dhttp://mediamatters.org/static/video/2009/03/27/hannity-20090327-health.flv"></param><embed src="http://mediamatters.org/static/flash/mediaplayer316.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg%3Fflv%3Dhttp://mediamatters.org/static/video/2009/03/27/hannity-20090327-health.flv" width="320" height="260"></embed></object></youtube>

You might think that Fox is "Fair and Balanced" - but they sure as hell aren't "accurate and truthful"

And in your estimation, TT, who is accurate and truthful? MSNBC?

[nelson]

Good post, TT. I like your opinions, although usually I disagree, they're never dull.

As far as O'Reilly, Hannity, et al, the ratings reveal that many people want to see them.

I understand it's not really the first time. He erred, and I catch many such errs on all the news networks. (Though, curiously, I notice that often most on the other networks are not exposed by organizations like Media Matters.) However, let's not belittle what is happening. This is General Motors, after all; that's quite different than Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and even AIG. Also there is no long history of federal government removing executives of private corporations. It's a shocking matter that serious capitalists would never talk down, or make light of.

I'm not surprised you don't like the "some people are saying" game. It is precisely the same as the "anonymous sources" and "unidentified sources" games, which -- let's be honest -- the media adopted long before the inception of Fox News in 1996, in order to provoke without having to provide (documentation). The left, oops, I mean the "mainstream media" never should have started that.

BTW, Martha isn't the only one talking about Canadian health care vs. Natasha Richardson's death:

Was Canada's health care the problem?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0325natashamar25,0,3093948.story

Yes, Canadian Health Care Helped Kill Natasha Richardson, Doctor Says
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/03/26/yes-canadian-health-care-helpe

Doctor: Lack of medical helicopter cost actress
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090321/ap_on_en_mo/natasha_richardson

The province of Quebec lacks a medical helicopter system, common in the United States and other parts of Canada, to airlift stricken patients to major trauma centers. Montreal's top head trauma doctor said Friday that may have played a role in Richardson's death.

Anyway I see virtually all of the TV media in exactly the same light as you see Fox News. It's a business that specializes in sensationalism, baloney journalism, and mini-movie emotionalism. It's true that, of all the news networks, I like Fox best, but that's only because there are no other real alternatives. To me, there's only "left" and "far left." ;)

I don't see Michael Savage ever doing television, but that's the sort of program I'd watch. :gun:

[truthteller]

As far as O'Reilly, Hannity, et al, the ratings reveal that many people want to see them.

Apparently some twelve million people paid good money to watch Monsters vs. Aliens last week - but that doesn't mean that aliens are really living among us.

Actually Media Matters does fairly regularly highlight stories in the mainstream press (NY Times, CBS, ABC, etc.) that they feel are inaccurate, or that tend to carelessly repeat factually dubious stories. For instance, just today they point out fact that the NY Times writer interviewing global-warming skeptic Freeman Dyson had previously written mainly about sports and music, as opposed to science reporting.

Does Fox News get mentioned a lot? Absolutely, but that has more to do with the fact that they seem to pursue a political agenda, with scant regard for the truth, let alone remaining objective.

The "Natasha Richardson killed by Canadian healthcare" story is a stretch, at the best of times. The problem with the Chicago Tribune editorial is that, contrary to what the writer said, the hospital Richardson was first taken to DID have a CT scanner, and she did in fact receive a scan (http://www.canada.com/Health/Canadian+healthcare+didn+kill+Natasha+Richardson+d octor/1440316/story.html).

But a simple phone call Saturday to the radiology department at the Centre Hospitalier Laurentien revealed that the hospital is in fact equipped with a CT scanner

And arguing that emergency helicopter transport would have made a difference gets you onto slippery ground too: We've just come off one of the most lethal years in history for medical helicopter flights. Here in the US most experts believe emergency helicopters are actually OVERUSED, including a Medevac chopper that crashed last Spetember in Maryland - killing three personnel, and two girls with non-life threatening injuries who had been involved in a car crash. The helicopter might have saved one celebrity - but it certainly killed a bunch of other people.

Lastly, there is a tremendous difference between "anonymous sources" and "some people are saying." Most reputable news organizations have a strict policy on the use and handling of anonymous sources (http://www.nytco.com/company/business_units/sources.html). And by definition, an anonymous source is going to be someone with inside or specialized knowledge of a story: if you are writing about the Pentagon, or Exxon Mobil then the "anonymous source" is going to be someone who works there. "People are saying" could, and most frequently DOES, refer to just about anyone, including the writer of the story themsevles.

The problem with Fox News is that, in their effort to pursue their political agenda, they quite literally don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

[nelson]

:rofl Good stuff! But actually I think O'Reilly, Hannity, and the rest of the news programs that liberals (and their devices like media matters, the entertainment industry, public schooling, universities, and even their government officials) continually try to destroy.... are so incredibly popular because millions of people are so tired of the clear, admitted ultra-liberal bias in the "mainstream" media. The "mainstream" media (i.e. all the stations that Fox is absolutely blowing away, which includes CNN / MSNBC / ABC / CBS / NBC / NPR / PBS / ETC) has propagandized so aggressively for so long on behalf of the Democrat party that many viewers finally woke up, and those stations are suffering now as a result. True, many lemmings are still plugged into the "mainstream" propaganda machines like it's Edward Nygma's mind machine... and they literally don't think for themselves. But many of us make a deliberate choice to watch or listen to something we believe is a superior product. It does take a deliberate choice.

I'm not making a case about Natasha Richardson. Her death is tragic but I haven't really been following it. I was just correcting an errant characterization; the role of the Canadian health care system in her death has actually been widely discussed. It was incited by the comments of the Canadian physician who cared for her in Montreal. Strangely, despite the comments of that physician and the wide discussion of this issue as noted, you will notice that it has been carefully avoided in the "mainstream" media. (Had the discussion been about the poor American health care system, we'd still be hearing about it on CNN.)

I know the media is supposed to be very careful about sourcing, using "anonymous sources," and the like. Trust me, they aren't. The "mainstream" media routinely uses "anonymous sources" like a cloak of protection. Most of us know this and I think you do too.

[The G]

So all news media is bias except Fox news ?

[gtrman66]

No, all media is biased. Fox tends to do a better job of inviting opposing viewpoints is all.

[The G]

No, all media is biased. Fox tends to do a better job of inviting opposing viewpoints is all.
Now that a political correct statement if I ever seen one. :rofl

[Remphoto]

Here's a Fox story on US Guns in Mexico. I'll bet it will not get widespread coverage on the other networks:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/

[MYCAR47562]

lies lies lies lies lies lies

[Remphoto]

He is one of the lying articles from TT's vaunted ABC Network:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4695848&page=1

[MYCAR47562]

Rem Don't You See S.a.w.'s All The Time At Gun Shows?

[Remphoto]

Rem Don't You See S.a.w.'s All The Time At Gun Shows?

:rofl Heck yes, I have 3 of them in my gun cabinet. Everyone knows they are available at any gun store. I'll bet WalMart carries them, too. We have kids shooting cans with them in our neighborhood. :rofl