FOX gets Foxed.

[August]

never mind AL beat me to it

[Camaero]

Fox just sounds like "propaganda" because it is the only station to sing a different tune than all the liberal news stations.

None of them do a very good job though. I don't watch it anymore. Nothing but Anna Nicole this and Britney Spear's bald head that. Thats not news!

How about showing Iraq and not just the bad either. I hate stations that seek to make our military men look bad. Why not show the good that has been done as well? Now theres selective news for you. Right now I guess our whole military is made up of baby eating, torturing shxt heads. I guess all muslims are our friends, cause no true muslim would blow themselves up. I guess George Bush is an evil evil man who has started his war on terror just for oil. I guess Sadam was a tough man who had the right to rule his country how he wanted.



Wrong.
Sorry, I was raised better than that.

[Tchocky]

From the Project for Excellence in Journalism, State Of The Media 2004:

By more than three-to-one, national and local journalists believe it is a bad thing if some news organizations have a "decidedly ideological point of view" in their news coverage. And more than four-in-ten in both groups say journalists too often let their ideological views show in their reporting. This view is held more by self-described conservative journalists than moderates or liberals.

At the same time, the single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance * either liberal or conservative * is Fox News Channel. Among national journalists, more than twice as many could identify a daily news organization that they think is "especially conservative in its coverage" than one they believe is "especially liberal" (82% vs. 38%). And Fox has by far the highest profile as a conservative news organization; it was cited unprompted by 69% of national journalists. The New York Times was most often mentioned as the national daily news organization that takes a decidedly liberal point of view, but only by 20% of the national sample.

[Tchocky]

Washington post aren't covering themselves in glory either - http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_04_0...95681241609223
and
http://mathaba.net/news/?x=553234

I can't take anyone seriously who believes that the American mass media are biased in a certain direction.

[bookworm_020]

Is there any neutral, unbiased reporting left (or at least not so pro one side)??? It seems the media is taking sides in political debates and it's getting hard to see throught the PR spin thats put on everything.

I saw it here in the state election in Australia, one news group was pro one side, the other newsgroup the rivals.

It's getting said watching this, I'm hoping there will be some enlightenment, but I'm not hopeful.

[August]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

From the Project for Excellence in Journalism, State Of The Media 2004:

Journalists seeing Fox as conservative is like Vlad the Impaler seeing Htiler as a weenie. You have to bear the source in mind when reading such things.

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by Camaero

Fox just sounds like "propaganda" because it is the only station to sing a different tune than all the liberal news stations.

That is such a gross misinterpretation. I won't deny that there are news sources that show obvious political bias often. However there is a decided difference between leaning one way or another on certain stories and generating genuine disinformation which misleads people. Whereas on some stations like CNN where most of it comes off as just reporting with a bit of a slant sometimes in shows like Lou Dobbs, on FOX News the entire production feels like an editorial.

I have watched enough of FOX News to see through their technique. If you watch closely you'll notice that they'll say something decidedly right wing or biased by asking it as a question. Whenever theres a panel if theres a token liberal its usually an agreeable middle of the road commentator that doesn't argue. And any station that features Ann Coulter regularly and hosts Bill O'Reily is suspect to me.

This is an old but familiar story:
A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, in the Winter 03-04 issue of Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of the Fox Network local affiliates or Fox News were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three views which the authors labeled as misperceptions :

• 67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS). However, the belief that "Iraq was directly involved in September 11" was held by 33% of CBS viewers and only 24% of Fox viewers, 23% for ABC, 22% for NBC, 21% for CNN and 10% for NPR/PBS
• 33% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended". (Compared with 23% for CBS, 20% for both CNN and NBC, 19% for ABC and 11% for both NPR/PBS)
• 35% of Fox viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS)

All that coming from this publicated study:http://www.psqonline.org/cgi-bin/99_...ee&format=view
I'd say that suggests rather broad misinformation.

I guess Sadam was a tough man who had the right to rule his country how he wanted.

And you'd be right on that point if it were the 80s and Saddam were attacking that dangerous Iranian regime. You forget too easily that Saddam was given most of the weapons used in the Gulf Wars against the US by the US for war against Iran.

Don't forget the handshake.

[August]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

That is such a gross misinterpretation. I won't deny that there are news sources that show obvious political bias often. However there is a decided difference between leaning one way or another on certain stories and generating genuine disinformation which misleads people. Whereas on some stations like CNN where most of it comes off as just reporting with a bit of a slant sometimes in shows like Lou Dobbs, on FOX News the entire production feels like an editorial.

Which is just your opinion. Personally I see networks like CBS far more slanted to the left than Fox is to the right.

As for your poll data. I watch all those networks. Which category does that put me in?

And you'd be right on that point if it were the 80s and Saddam were attacking that dangerous Iranian regime. You forget too easily that Saddam was given most of the weapons used in the Gulf Wars against the US by the US for war against Iran.

Oh really? Which ones? All I've heard them use is a bunch of sSoviet equipment or is the T-72, AK-47 MiG and SCUD considered to be US weapons now?

Don't forget the handshake.

You mean a handshake like this one?

[The Avon Lady]

Or a French Kiss, like this one?


“The first, Jacques Chirac, described the second, Saddam Hussein,
as a personal friend, showed him around a French nuclear reactor
and invited him to his home for the weekend. It was about this time
that the prime minister was nicknamed Jacques Iraq.”
- "French Industry Stands to Lose", By John Laurenson, International Herald Tribune, March 7, 2003

My! My! Selective memory has its nanoseconds.

[Enigma]

Ohhhhh....Wait.....

[The Avon Lady]

Yep.

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by August

Which is just your opinion. Personally I see networks like CBS far more slanted to the left than Fox is to the right.

As for your poll data. I watch all those networks. Which category does that put me in?

Well of course its my opinion. Isn't that the point of this? But maybe you ought to at least give your opinion more than just a coating of self confidence. Maybe express it instead of just identifying its existance in abstract space.

And the statistics aren't about whether people only watch one channel. They infer that people who get most of their information from Fox News are more likely to be misinformed than those who watch other channels. Good for you for watching all of the channels but not everyone is like that. In fact most people are the opposite. I don't see what you said as being much of an argument about the statistics.

Oh really? Which ones? All I've heard them use is a bunch of sSoviet equipment or is the T-72, AK-47 MiG and SCUD considered to be US weapons now?

Money buys weapons. Political interference buys time and opportunity. And besides we all know that the US supported them. Are you REALLY trying to re-write history? Cuase whenever someone insists that the US had nothing to do with the Contras or that Noriega wasn't an American lap dog it is rather sad and funny. After the Iranian revolution of 79 the pro-American Shah was gone and that wasn't what the US liked. Iraq had a history of border issues with Iran and of course the US gave huge amounts of money to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. The AK-47s came from the deal with the Soviet Union in the 70s but that fell through around 79.

Forget the black and white world. Saddam flip flopped as much as the US.

You mean a handshake like this one?

Yes, thats EXACTLY the same. Why don't we just say that Syria and its leaders are EXACTLY the same as Saddam and his regime. I mean they're all just a bunch of arabs in the desert. They're all the same thing right? I mean the prior and very paradoxical relationship between the US and Saddam before the war(s) are the same as Syria which the US isn't apparently even supposed to talk to. The irony of Rumsfeld shaking old Saddam's hand is lost on you I suppose.:hmm:

Learn some nuance.

And to the Avon Lady. What in gods name does France have to do with this? Are you just using the google image search to cloud the argument? If we want to talk about where Saddam's Nuclear program came from then that would be a propos. Otherwise you're being a smart ass.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Yes, thats EXACTLY the same. Why don't we just say that Syria and its leaders are EXACTLY the same as Saddam and his regime.

If the shoe fits.

While not the same, they shared a number of similarities.

I mean they're all just a bunch of arabs in the desert.

Remember you said it.

This would be applicable to any country that behaves like Syria, Greenland not excluded.

I mean the prior and very paradoxical relationship

Precisely. Our enemy's enemy is our friend.

between the US and Saddam before the war(s) are the same as Syria which the US isn't apparently even supposed to talk to. The irony of Rumsfeld shaking old Saddam's hand is lost on you I suppose.:hmm:

Not on me, at least. But the irony doesn't make it any more relevant than all the other pics just posted here.

Learn some nuance.

Speaking of irony! :rotfl:

And to the Avon Lady. What in gods name does France have to do with this?

Everybody was in bed with whichever side advanced their causes. But some causes are different than others.

Are you just using the google image search to cloud the argument?

I thought it would be easier for you if it were illustrated.

If we want to talk about where Saddam's Nuclear program came from then that would be a propos. Otherwise you're being a smart ass.

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

If the shoe fits.

While not the same, they shared a number of similarities.

As does the US with many despotic regimes. Between the secret prisons and the jingoistic foreign policy. However, similarities aren't justification to generalize anyone that the current american regime says is bad stuff.

Remember you said it.

And it is a sarcastic nod towards the tendency to generalize all arab regimes that aren't kissing up to the US.

Precisely. Our enemy's enemy is our friend.

And I was making light of the fact that whenever someone justifies the Iraq invasion they make the intentions sound so righteous and honourable. The fact is that if Saddam was so darned evil then the US, even the current administration's forbearer, is directly complicit in whatever evil he committed.

Everybody was in bed with whichever side advanced their causes. But some causes are different than others.

Another irrelavent cryptic remark. You're reaching.

Honestly Avon Lady, micro-analysing my post and taking sentenses out of context isn't much of a way to argue. You ignore the overall point and instead deride me and mock me without actually being a person and just discussing. Contempt is such a boring way to go about a conversation. I could be as needlessly smug as you but I choose not to. You insult your own intelligence.

[August]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Well of course its my opinion. Isn't that the point of this? But maybe you ought to at least give your opinion more than just a coating of self confidence. Maybe express it instead of just identifying its existance in abstract space.

Maybe, but then again i'd miss such interesting repartee about abstract space.

And the statistics aren't about whether people only watch one channel. They infer that people who get most of their information from Fox News are more likely to be misinformed than those who watch other channels.

No it doesn't. The percentages you mention are, for the most part, well below 50%. The questions are loaded too. Take the WMD one for example. There HAVE been chemical weapons found in Iraq, not the mother load I grant you, but the poll does not distinguish between that and the chemical warfare artillery rounds that have indeed been found. Nor does it mention the chemical agents recovered in Jordan from a failed terrorist attack either.

In short your poll is nothing more than bovine feces. Cherry picked statistics designed to push an agenda.

Money buys weapons. Political interference buys time and opportunity. And besides we all know that the US supported them.

No you said "given most of the weapons used in the Gulf Wars against the US by the US for war against Iran", not money or political interference or neato Skillcraft US government pens, and yeah we also know Saddam DID use chemical weapons, and had not accounted for the ones we knew he had. We also knew that he on many occasions threatened to use them and we know he at least possessed the means to restart chemwep programs.

Are you REALLY trying to re-write history? Cuase whenever someone insists that the US had nothing to do with the Contras or that Noriega wasn't an American lap dog it is rather sad and funny.

Not as sad and funny as the fact that none of that has anything to do with Saddam.

After the Iranian revolution of 79 the pro-American Shah was gone and that wasn't what the US liked. Iraq had a history of border issues with Iran and of course the US gave huge amounts of money to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. The AK-47s came from the deal with the Soviet Union in the 70s but that fell through around 79.

Yeah right. The man was in control of huge amounts of oil revenue, he hardly needed money from us to fund his war machine against Iran.

Forget the black and white world. Saddam flip flopped as much as the US.

And his flip flopping is what eventually did him in.

Yes, thats EXACTLY the same. Why don't we just say that Syria and its leaders are EXACTLY the same as Saddam and his regime. I mean they're all just a bunch of arabs in the desert. They're all the same thing right? I mean the prior and very paradoxical relationship between the US and Saddam before the war(s) are the same as Syria which the US isn't apparently even supposed to talk to. The irony of Rumsfeld shaking old Saddam's hand is lost on you I suppose.:hmm:

Learn some nuance.

I responded with that Pelosi picture to point out that a stupid handshake picture does not mean some kind of dark evil deal has been made. I'd say that if anyone needs to "learn some nuance" it is you wiseguy.

Otherwise you're being a smart ass.

Pot, kettle, black.