Fox News is not a news organization

Hi Shopper,

Compared to what? Compared to nothing. My critique of Fox lives in a vaccuum. This is a thread about Fox News and if you reread my points I believe you'll see my conclusions aren't comparitive/relative in nature.

Yep- you are correct. I am very afraid of Fox's popularity. But not because "my party" no longer controls the airwaves. Call me a liberal but I'm no democrat. I don't wish to see a libnut dominated mainstream media any more than I do the whackjobs from the fringe of the right. I am less bothered by democratic leaning programming or republican leaning programming. But Fox isn't Republican leaning programming. The republican party has been unrecognizable for years.

The aggregate total of the news available thanks to technology might be the most fair and balanced we've seen in history. BmY Fox news is hardly fair and balanced.

The people who don't like Fox news, it is those who wake up in the morning and when they look in the mirror, they don't see a reflection of the real America for which many brave men have sacrificed so we could maintain the freedom and protect the lives of our children. We fight against the rule of the socilist agenda against which our forefathers fought, and truth, which is what networks like Fox communicate and try to reach even those who refuse to listen. So that when I look out my window and see Russia, it is only from Alaska. Let us hope the the farmer in the heartland never looks out his window, or the good people of Arizona never has to see the illegal immigrants who seek to destroy this country with their hatred of our values.

Snorting a bit too much of that Fauxcaine there Ms. Quitty don't cha think?

I think to classify any of the nationally televised reporting organizations (FOX, MSNBC, CNN, etc) as 'news organizations' is delusional.

They are all for-profit-first media organizations that make their money by appealing to a certain audience and they all slant their coverage to fit that viewer base. (Fox on the far right, MSNBC on the far left, CNN on the not-as-far left, and so on.)

There's very little real, dispassionate, un-slanted presentation of facts by any of them. It simply won't attract viewers (and viewers mean money.)

Even the 'Weather Channel' runs sensationalist programming just to increase revenues. That's why Jim Cantore stands outside in a hurricane.

It is simply amazing that so many, who admittedly, don't watch it, have such vilifying comments on the #1 cable news network. lol

But we have watched it and found it unpleasent. I caught my finger in the car door and found it also to be unpleasent so I try to avoid repeating that mistake.

....yep, just as balanced as the Saudi prince and CAIR wants it to be....

Honestly, Fox only frightens me because of the power (see above) that it seems to hold over people. I cannot think of a single person that gets all agitated when CNN, MSNBC, NBC News, ABC News, CBS News or the Northwest Daily News is criticized, unless they are the owners. I don't see people feeling it is a threat to their liberty if I were to point out, for example, that for Anderson Cooper to give airtime to Brownie last night so that he could spout his halfwit opinions was just muckracking and an attempt to create a controversy, not real news.

Anyone? Anyone want to jump in here and act like I'm some sort of anti-American, anti-freedom wingnut for criticizing Anderson Cooper and CNN?

The only people posting "Pile on XYZ News" threads on SoWal are liberals like yourself.. posting threads about Fox News!

I agree with the "power over people" part, and unfortunately all too often the people over whom the power is held, are the very ones most adversely affected by the idealogy espoused by these so called news shows.

And the idea that Shopper has that the news is more fair and balanced now than ever before is ludricious.

Almost all the news agencies now are owned by corporations whether US or otherwise...the ratings which used to be only for entertainment purposes, are now used for newscasts as well--news has been relegated to the commerce side of the house--which is now the only side of the house.

Goodwitch, I can't believe you would say that. With the internet - blogs, news web sites, opinion sites, grass roots political sites, and a plethora of cable news networks coming on to the scene in just the last ten years, you honestly feel news today is less balanced? I can't imagine you would prefer to go back to the days of three major nightly news casts and a couple national papers. (All of which were owned by large corporations, just as they are today.)

If some people get their news from only one of the above sources - nothing has changed for them except maybe the political slant of the source from which they get it. The rest of us have far more news sources to pull from than our parents did. I consider that a good thing.

Goodwitch, I can't believe you would say that. With the internet - blogs, news web sites, opinion sites, grass roots political sites, and a plethora of cable news networks coming on to the scene in just the last ten years, you honestly feel news today is less balanced? I can't imagine you would prefer to go back to the days of three major nightly news casts and a couple national papers. (All of which were owned by large corporations, just as they are today.)

If some people get their news from only one of the above sources - nothing has changed for them except maybe the political slant of the source from which they get it. The rest of us have far more news sources to pull from than our parents did. I consider that a good thing.

But you miss my point. there are more news outlets today that's for sure--but the quality of what is available is not objective...it is developed/produced to play to the ratings, not to the ethics of journalism.
Some of the best J schools in the country are spending thousands of research dollars to address this issue, because so few students are able to get jobs doing real journalism.

I would gladly go back to the day when there were no cable stations. I believe they have contaminated the entire news gathering process in ways that Ted Turner never even thought about...

Television in general is a horrible way to receive news--the sound bite never gets to the issue.
In fact, I think what is served up as both news and entertainment on most television is pathetic. It's why I don't watch much and love my DVR--no commercials and only those shows that offer some introspection and critical thinking...if I want to be entertained, I will find a movie or read a book or spend time with friends and neighbors enjoying good conversation.

I love the fact that we have the Internet and are able to research almost anything within moments...and I do enjoy the ability to check many sources, but television news...no, it is long gone.

Goodwitch and 30Ashopper- I was thinking about our news choices today and what GW said- when I was growing up, everyone read the morning and evening daily paper (Courier Journal and Louisville Times), and everyone watched one of the networks every night for the news, and I don't remember anyone grousing about a political slant of any media, or maybe I wasn't paying attention.

In my late 20s/early 30s, my dad started griping about the publisher of the Courier (Barry Bingham was a progressive Democrat), but the TV cable news had taken off and the nightly news was no longer the nightly news.

Now it is impossible to find any media outlet that is truly unbiased. So we get news from outlets that are the least offensive to our own sensibilities.

My thoughts on Fox News

Fox News is a lot like professional wrestling; some people believe it is real

My thoughts on Fox News

Fox News is a lot like professional wrestling; some people believe it is real.

Recognize, as in able to identify is from it usual characteristics... or ...acknowlege its actual existence at all?

it's current existence cannot include any deviation from strict adherence to corporate domination of government

:roll: Compared to what exactly.. ;-) MSNBC? CNN? Comedy Central? CBS? ABC? NBC? HBO? PBS? New York Times? L.A Times? NPR? Newsweek? Time? Anything owned by NBC or Time Warner?

The *only* main stream media outlet available that isn't slanted to the left is Fox. You, like all liberals, are frightened to death of the popularity of Fox. I get that. For ages your political party has had a controlling grip on the public's source of the news. But with the advent of the internet and the Fox network, your party has completely lost that control. I can understand why that might scare the bajeezus out of you (the fairness doctrine is a good example of just how far your party will go to regain that control) but in the grand scheme of things, this change is a *good* thing. The news available to people today is far more "fair and balanced" than it has ever been in our history.

what is appealing to you of fox's content? it's single minded theme. it's graphics? it's showgirls?

what is appealing to you of fox's content? it's single minded theme. it's graphics? it's showgirls?

I tune in to Fox News regularly for Special Report with Bret Baier, because it is without a doubt the best daily political commentary show on television. (I just wish it were longer.) O'Reily is enjoyable to watch too, he'll put a smile on your face and give you a good chuckle every time.

I tune in to Fox News regularly for Special Report with Bret Baier, because it is without a doubt the best daily political commentary show on television. (I just wish it were longer.) O'Reily is enjoyable to watch too, he'll put a smile on your face and give you a good chuckle every time.

Because O'Reilly is the ONLY Journalist on TV news right now and he'll be the first to stake that claim. Everyone else is a ___________ - I forgot what he calls them. Entertainer maybe? :funn: They are all slightly entertaining and annoying simultaneously. Just my humble opinion, but the theatrics should count for something.

Realize it or not, but the fact that a thread exclusively dedicated to Fox News was created and seems to be very popular based on all the posts, says something about Fox's popularity in and of itself. When Rupert Murdock is brought up and his "evil" news organization, one seldom hears a "fair and balanced" conversation including Jeffery Immelt, GE owned NBC, and the vast left wing conspiracy.
When and if I do watch MSNBC, it is only to get a good laugh at Olbermann and his rants.

Shopper, I don't take issue with BB or O'Reilly. Hannity and Beck on the other hand...

Here's a classical example of why I'm not impressed with Faux News.

This evening around 22:30 hrs., CNN breaks in on Anderson Cooper with Breaking News about an abandoned U-Haul on the RFK bridge in NY. There was witnesses that the driver stopped and ran away from the vehicle and NYPD is on scene advising the strong smell of gasoline around the vehicle. Could be nothing, but in the light of what just happened in NY, truly news-worthy.

Now, I decide to flip over to Faux News to see what they have on the story. NOTHING.
Billy O'Reilly is on and talking to some blondie who wrote a book about smiles and they are looking at video of celebrities and discussing their facial expressions....now as I write this, Billy has Dennis Miller on talking about the jokes that the President did at the dinner the other night as well as video that the troops are dancing too from Lady Gaga!

Now tell me again, why I should watch Faux News since they are the #1 media outlet? Fair, Balanced and Blondes.....

Goodwitch, I can't believe you would say that. With the internet - blogs, news web sites, opinion sites, grass roots political sites, and a plethora of cable news networks coming on to the scene in just the last ten years, you honestly feel news today is less balanced? I can't imagine you would prefer to go back to the days of three major nightly news casts and a couple national papers. (All of which were owned by large corporations, just as they are today.)

If some people get their news from only one of the above sources - nothing has changed for them except maybe the political slant of the source from which they get it. The rest of us have far more news sources to pull from than our parents did. I consider that a good thing.

Sometimes more is ......just more though. I think Jdarg summed it up best.

I think most are in the entertainment business not journalistic reporting.

Fox News is a lot like professional wrestling; some people believe it is real

Ya think?;-)

Ya think?;-)

Yeah, and no matter what one says to the believers, they still believe!

Yeah, and no matter what one says to the believers, they still believe!

That definitely cuts both ways. And the believers are generally every bit as well educated and intelligent as the "others" and are quite capable of separating professional wrestling from prize fighting as well as news from opinion. But then, maybe some cannot accept that fact, either.

Any station that refuses to run this ad may want to rethink "Fair and Balanced."

Fox refuses climate ad - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

Andy, I'm glad you chimed in. You reminded me of a point I wanted to make.

I'm not afraid that bright folks like you prefer and watch Fox News because, as you said, you are able to discern between the wrestling and the prize fighting.

But America is full of Americans who quite frankly aren't very bright. I believe the combination of such programming and lack of intellect equates to a scary populace.

Shopper, I don't take issue with BB or O'Reilly. Hannity and Beck on the other hand...

Ok, but how are these shows any different from the myriad of other similar shows on cable, and why center on Fox News without mentioning the rest? This is the thing I find so funny, folks on the left seem to be blind when it comes to people like Stewart, Maher, Olberrman, Meadows, Shultz, Rather, Moyers, Mathews, ... the list is loooong.

... but Beck discredits an entire network apparently. OK, whateva!

Threads on SoWal like this one are all clearly biased toward left leaning views on the subject, and almost always get created by liberals on the board. Oh the irony of it all!

Goodwitch and 30Ashopper- I was thinking about our news choices today and what GW said- when I was growing up, everyone read the morning and evening daily paper (Courier Journal and Louisville Times), and everyone watched one of the networks every night for the news, and I don't remember anyone grousing about a political slant of any media, or maybe I wasn't paying attention.

In my late 20s/early 30s, my dad started griping about the publisher of the Courier (Barry Bingham was a progressive Democrat), but the TV cable news had taken off and the nightly news was no longer the nightly news.

Now it is impossible to find any media outlet that is truly unbiased. So we get news from outlets that are the least offensive to our own sensibilities.

I agree in part, although I'm not sure we ever had unbiased news sources, we just didn't have anything to compare them to.

Personally I like all the sources and opposing views, I find it fascinating to compare how each side presents a subject. (I recognize however that I'm a polticial news junkie. Some might not be so appreciative.)