Fox News is not a news organization

[30ashopper]

....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!

 

[30ashopper]

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.

 

[GoodWitch58]

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.

 

[Jdarg]

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.

 

[Dave Rauschkolb]

My thoughts on Fox News

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

 

[Dave Rauschkolb]

My thoughts on Fox News

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

 

[Bob]

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

 

[Bob]

: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?

 

[30ashopper]

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.

 

[Lynnie]

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.