FOX gets Foxed.

[Enigma]

It's high time someone stood up to the "fair & balanced" hackery propaganda channel, and gave them what they deserve. Nothing.

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will not participate in a Democratic debate co-hosted by Fox News Channel this fall, campaign aides indicated Monday.
The decision by the two Democratic presidential candidates follows an announcement last week by John Edwards, another White House contender, that he would forgo the Fox event.
The Sept. 23 debate, set for Detroit, is co-sponsored by the cable news network and by the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute.
...Obama and Clinton aides said they intended to participate in six debates sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee. The DNC's list did not include the Fox News-CBC Institute debate, a concession to liberal and black activists who say Fox has slighted blacks and is biased in favor of conservatives

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18035439/

Also must tip the hat to Mr. Obama for showing some backbone and dismissing a CBC event due to the lack of integrity of it's co-sponser. Admirable move for a man in his position....

[Tchocky]

Liberals can't argue their positions, so they're running away!

(I wonder how obvious one has to be here sometimes)

Good show Clinton/Obama!

[Sailor Steve]

"Democrats have been under pressure from liberal activists to avoid Fox-hosted debates. Last month, the Nevada Democratic Party canceled a debate that Fox was to co-sponsor in August."

Criticisms of Fox aside, I don't see why their debate would be any worse than any others, or why "liberal activists" would bring pressure on candidates to avoid it.

That said, I despise televised "debates" in general; I would rather see candidates actually debate the issues than answer newspeoples' loaded questions.

[Enigma]

That said, I despise televised "debates" in general; I would rather see candidates actually debate the issues than answer newspeoples' loaded questions.

Agreed!

I would actually prefer that the Dems go into FOX's house, and call them out on live TV. Stare the lion in the face, so to speak. Show some back bone and some convicitons.
However, I think this is a good thing too. It sends the right message. There was no real pressure on the campaigns to do this, and I find that to be a positive sign. FOX has been getting away with their PR campaign for the right for waaaaay too long, despite all the charges abound that the media is a liberal one. It's high time someone called them on their BS, and the fact that Edwards led the charge, and they did so in a dignified manner is encouraging. At the very least it makes FOX look like what they are, and not what they portray themselves to be...

[August]

I wonder how many people here will decry the republicans refusing to debate on CBS for the same reasons?

[Enigma]

I would.

CBS/Fox = apples/oranges. CBS isnt guilty of being the mouthpiece for the democratic party. FOX goes as far as adjusting its storyboard headlines to fit with the rights agenda or cause. it's dispicable.

The republicans refused to take part in Moveon.org's debates last time around. In that case, I agreed with their decision completely. Calling out Moveon was one thing. Calling out a major TV netwrok is quite another...

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Enigma

CBS isnt guilty of being the mouthpiece for the democratic party.

CBS? As in disgraced Dan Rather CBS? Where anything to smear Bush goes? That CBS?

Or the CBS correspondent who called MacCain disgraceful? That CBS?

Or the CBS whose Andy Rooney on 60 minutes last month said that today's US military is made out of 'losers'? That CBS?

What liberal bias? Can't be!

P'shaw! Apples and oranges.

[Enigma]

Ahh, if the shoe fits, as you say!

Look, i'm not saying CBS hasn't had it's moments. Is it FOX news? is it 24 hours a day of propaganda and slanted commentary? No! It's not even close to FOX in that regard.

As for calling Mccain a disgrace, well, here it is.

BRIAN MONTOPOLI: It seems that some reporters, including yourself and CNN's Michael Ware, have really taken umbrage at John McCain's recent comments, essentially saying that there are a lot of neighborhoods where you can walk around relatively safely. Is it fair to say that that really sort of bothered reporters?

ALLEN PIZZEY: Yes. It's disgraceful for a man seeking highest office, I think, to talk utter rubbish. And that is utter rubbish. It's electoral propaganda. It is simply not true. No one in his right mind who has been to Baghdad believes that story. Now, McCain and some other senators were there on Sunday, and they claimed, "Oh, we walked around for a whole hour…and we drove in from the airport. Gosh, aren't we great, we drove in from the airport." Excuse me, Mr. McCain, you drove in in a large convoy of heavily armed vehicles. The last one had a sign on it saying "Keep back 100 yards. Deadly force authorized." Every single car that they approached or passed pulled over and stopped, because that's the way it is. When one of those security details goes by, every ordinary person gets the hell out of the way, in case they get shot. If he did walk around that market, and I didn't see him do it, and he didn't announce he was going to do it, you can bet your life there were an awful lot of soldiers deployed to make sure that nobody came near that place. He's talking rubbish. And he should not get away with it.

I for one dont have a problem with that. None at all. The reporter in question (with whom I am not familiar) was asked his feelings on the situation. It's not like he reported it as a news story. Besides, Mccain, (a guy I actually like alot) was accompanied by “100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead.” and was now famously draped in Kevlar.

McCain said that there “are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk safely through neighborhoods, today.”
McCain told a reporter that his visit to the market today was proof that you could “walk freely” in some areas of Baghdad.

He misrepresented what happened, and how the scene on the ground was. I think thats disgraceful when you are asking me to elect you President of the US.

P.S = Andy Rooney is a crazy old coot.

Media Matters (a source im sure you will love and embrace ) did a study on CBS liberal bias not long ago, based around it's popular Sunday panel shows....

[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.