The level to which FOX drives manipulation...

[Safe-Keeper]

Disturbing. I know FOX "News"' reputation, but to steep this low is simply disturbing.

Says the guy who takes the Huffington Post as gospel...

Go read any article. I particulary like the one on knifes! Hahahahaha!

If anyone wonders why I have these two on ignore, this should settle it once and for all.

Relax Skybird, chill out and get some perspective.
Is it really all that bad?
Are you related or friends with these guys?

"Major news network distorts truth and tells lies"

"Perspective" such as "very few news outlets go to the ridiculous lengts to distort the truth as does FOX News"?

[mrbeast]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Well, since you want to dig up OLD threads:

This is more damning than anything Fox has ever done:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...highlight=bias

And here is an example of what type of articles you can expect on the BBC:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...ghlight=biased

I would take both of those articles with a pinch of salt. Both the Daily Mail and the Evening Standard (basically the DM but worse ) have had a vendetta against the BBC and public broadcasting in general and persue it at every opportunity. Theres even quite a number of dyed in the wool conservatives that dislike both of those papers. During the recent mayoral elections in London the Evening Standard was practically a propaganda sheet for the Tory candidate Boris Johnson and printed as many smear stories about Ken Livingstone as it could cram between its grubby pages.

You actually think Fox's thing is major? It is only a minor oops compared to what the BBC has done.

The BBC has an unconscious bias but it is not the politcally driven and orchastrated campiagn of falsehood and miss information that Fox news spews out on a daily basis.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgri...to_libe_1.html

Its owned by Rupert Murdoch and if that man dosen't have an clear right-wing agenda then I'm a monkey's uncle!

Also I wouldn't call doctoring images to make people look ridiculous or give a poor impression of them an 'oops'. Opps implies an accident, so the pictures were accidentally doctored presumably?

The bottom line is who would most people take as more credible the BBC or Fox News?

[Platapus]

There is no such thing as an unbiased news service. All of them employ humans and humans are always biased.

So the solution is not to look for an unbiased news service. Like Diogenes we often are disappointed.

Instead, I feel it is better to identify the biases of the different news services and then collect news from different biases for analysis. Once you have identified the bias of a specific reporter/journalist you are in a better position to interpret his or her writings.

So I proudly proclaim that I read Fox News every day. I read radical right, radical left, conservative, liberal, and moderate sources for the stories that interest me.

Only by reading the viewpoints from different angles can I hope to achieve an understanding of the situation.

Don't complain about biases in the news media, use that bias. it is a valuable tool. As long as you can properly identify and characterize the bias.

[Skybird]

Every human's thinking has a bias. But humans differ in their awareness level about this fact, they differ in their ability and/or willingness to try counter and/or compensate for that, they differ in their access to information, and they differ in their readiness to use that to question their own views; and so in the end people differ regarding the level at which they are being biased. Some are more, some are less.

Same is true for the media. Some are better, some are worse.

Just saying that it does not matter since all are biased and do not differ, is exactly this thing of undiscriminatory unlimited relativising until nothing of meaning is left anymore. That is neither helpful, nor inevitable.

[UnderseaLcpl]

a) Poor journalism

b) Not unique, happens everywhere. How many people believe reports about running put of oil or global warming being man-made?

c) Ultimate responsibility lies with the reader/viewer/listener

d) Worst case we have a slander suit here.

e) I understand your outrage but trusting anyone with any kind of influence at this level is folly. Sure idiots believe it but what don't they believe?

f) Thank our wonderful public education system.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

The same could be said for each news agency. When wasn't Speigel, or the BBC, or The New York Times, or the LA Times not pushing an agenda? Welcome to the world of news! Better not watch any of it!

-S

*******ING THING SUCKS!:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Bill, you've got to start taking up the bottle again. It's the only way to stave off his Irish fury: with Irish intoxicants.

Faux News is a pretty slanted source, but then again, all are. However, you can pretty much tell that it's REALLY bad when they show respect for Rush Limbaugh and try to blame forest fires on terrorists. I'll stick with CNN, thank you.