Fox your brain

[ironbar]

So the whole thing boils down to, "Fox's kettle is blackest, film at 11."

[JonS]

No, because I'm not a TV channel, and neither are the producers of the report.

Comprehension: it's good for you

[Affentitten]

Whilst media bias is nothing new, I think what is important here is that a large slab of the population are basing their political beliefs (and presumably voting intentions) on demonstrably false evidence. What's more, these falacies are being deliberately constructed and fed out with that motive of increasing support for one side. I say deliberately, because Fox news editors are not dumb, so they must realise that they are putting on more spin than Shane Warne.

Also, the bias is not equal. (!) The original studies mentioned in the OP show that Fox's Republican bias is several degrees more extreme than say MSNBC's liberal bias. measured in things like air time given to party hacks.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

The impression I get from way over here is that MSNBC is left leaning because many journalist (those working there, certainly) are left leaning. What I find distasteful about FOX is that they do not merely lean right but push right. It's all very deliberate, and often coupled with a very disingenuous methodology unmistakable from dishonesty.

For the longest time I read the Guardian, despite it being a well known left orientated paper. Because the leftishness stayed in the opinion, not in the fact. Fox News seems to cross that boundary, and wants the facts to come to the right too. Curiously, I get the impression their website is actually a bit more neutral then their TV.

Actually, didn't Jon Stewart give MSNBC a bollocking because they were trying to go toe to toe with FOX in this regard? IIRC he warned them they could not win, and shouldn't want to in the first place. Sounds about where I stand. We need less sjit, not more sjit distributed evenly.

[MSBoxer]

Did you all not see MSNBC's anchors covering the 2008 election attacking and insulting Palin every night while getting "Tingles up the leg" whenever Obama spoke? Or their star Olbermann apologizing for being forced to air the republican's video at their convention and that he found it insulting. If Olbermann and Mathews had spent as much energy looking into Obama's background and experience then perhaps the public would have realized then that he is not qualified and that his policies were not what America needed then instead of 18 months later.

Instead they pushed the democrat agenda and sold everyone on "Hope and Change" with no substance, no meaning and no clear plan to implement anything. It was only after he was elected and in office for more than a year that they even began to question if he was up to the task.

Bias is truly in the eye of the beholder. O'Rielly is a tool just as much as Olbermann and Mathews, but Fox does not tout him as a journalist and give him control over coverage of the Democratic convention.

[JonS]

"Everyone"?

Your argument is weak to begin with, adding hyperbole to the mix doesn't make it any more convincing.

Since you missed obviously it the first time: The others are bad, but Fox is worst. Also, you get dumber the more often you watch Fox.

Which this NOT the same as saying the other channels are 'good', nor is it the same as saying that watching the other channels makes you smart. However, when given a choice between bad and worse, most sane people chose bad rather than attempt to defend worst.

[MSBoxer]

"Everyone"?

Your argument is weak to begin with, adding hyperbole to the mix doesn't make it any more convincing.

Since you missed obviously it the first time: The others are bad, but Fox is worst. Also, you get dumber the more often you watch Fox.

Which this NOT the same as saying the other channels are 'good', nor is it the same as saying that watching the other channels makes you smart. However, when given a choice between bad and worse, most sane people chose bad rather than attempt to defend worst.

Jon,

I was responding to Elmar's statement that MSNBC has a bias while Fox actively pushes the conservative agenda and was trying to point out that MSNBC also actively pushes an agenda. My choice of the word everyone was obviously hyperbole and while perhaps a poor choice was meant to illustrate their intent.

Even Time, a publication widely recognized as left leaning stated

"Credit where due, Fox also had a more, well, balanced panel much of the night than its competitor MSNBC. Holding forth from left of center for Fox were the recently-high-profile Juan Williams and Democratic political guru Joe Trippi. MSNBC's main lineup, on the other hand, was basically its center-to-left lineup of nightly hosts: Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell.

Read more: http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/11/03/midterm-media-do-the-wave/#ixzz18K0H0ja3"

And the same from US News:

"Fox is at least making a pretense of maintaining the traditional separation between news and commentary. Then there’s MSNBC, which is being anchored, more or less, by liberal yakker Keith Olbermann…Occasionally they bring in the hyper-aggressively liberal bloviator Ed Schultz, setting up the image of the left quizzing the far left."

[JonS]

THE

OTHERS

ARE

BAD

BUT

FOX

IS

WORST

Sorry bro, but if you can't, don't, or won't parse that then I don't think there's a simpler or clearer way I can put it.

[MSBoxer]

THE

OTHERS

ARE

BAD

BUT

FOX

IS

WORST

Sorry bro, but if you can't, don't, or won't parse that then I don't think there's a simpler or clearer way I can put it.

Wow, you really have some issues. Where have I said that they are not the worst. I am simply trying to point out that they are merely the sickest in a community rife with disease. And I feel the need to point out that the article posted on a liberal website bashing a conservative news source DOES NOT point out that FOX is the worst. It points out that it's viewers are the lest informed, or do not know the facts according to a survey. Is this because of Fox, possibly, or it could be indicative of the socio-economic/educational demographics of those that prefer to watch Fox. Odds are it is somewhere in between.

Now what would be interesting is a study that correlates the answers in the survey to specific quotes from Fox that reinforces or can be attributed as a cause to those views. As any educated person knows a survey can be made to say almost anything that the surveyor chooses. Data is data, but analysis is interpretation and phrasing of questions is everything. That is what I was trying to point out in my initial post, the questions leave too much space for perception and interpretation. "Is the economy getting better?" well to a majority of the people I deal with on a daily basis as an employee of an international association of business owners it is not. Now government statistics may say otherwise, but to these folks it is not.

[JonS]

Now what would be interesting is a study that correlates the answers in the survey to specific quotes from Fox that reinforces or can be attributed as a cause to those views.

Probably not a survey in the sense you were thinking of, but a survey nonetheless:

http://www.youtube.com/user/LiberalViewer

As any educated person knows a survey can be made to say almost anything that the surveyor chooses.

Lamest attack on a survey, evah. If you think the survey and report is inherently flawed, show that. Quipping about "lies, damned lies and statistics" is about as useful as the rest of your posts. But you'll need to extend that to all the other surveys which show the same thing: Fox is worst.

Fox's general approach seems to be; add a lie to the truth, divide by two and call that 'being reasonable.'

[JonS]

Incidentally:

And I feel the need to point out that the article posted on a liberal website bashing a conservative news source DOES NOT point out that FOX is the worst.

You are free to call them what you will, but I cannot agree that the University of Maryland is 'a liberal website'. Secondly, they absolutely DO point out that Fox is the worst.

But, you know ... facts *pfft* what do they have to do with anything?

[MSBoxer]

Incidentally:

You are free to call them what you will, but I cannot agree that the University of Maryland is 'a liberal website'. Secondly, they absolutely DO point out that Fox is the worst.

But, you know ... facts *pfft* what do they have to do with anything?

OK Jon you want facts here are some facts.

One - the website www.alternet.org makes the statement that "Fox News is deliberately misinforming its viewers and it is doing so for a reason". This is not the subject of the survey but conjecture on the part of the author

Two - The University of Maryland does not manage the website, nor did they administer the survey. The survey was created by "World Public Opinion, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland", what they fail to mention is that while it is partially managed by a department at the University, it is actually a joint project with "Center on Policy Attitudes ". Of course the author knew that attributing it to a University exclusively would give it more clout.

Three - You hate Fox and that is fine. I actually don't care for Fox news either. But I hate those who insist on using the broadest, coarsest brush as a means to illustrate their opinion rather than look beyond the surface and explore the issue with a more open and analytical mindset.

Four - Since you insist on making this a crusade against Fox without looking at the deplorable state of the media in general, while resorting to childish passive aggressive attacks there really is no reason for me to continue to attempt to have a mature discussion on the topic.

Have a Merry Christmas

The best to you and yours

[JonS]

... there really is no reason for me to continue to attempt to have a mature discussion on the topic.

"Continue"? Heh.

Tell you what; when you want to start having a mature discussion let me know and we'll see how we go from there.

Happy Xmas

[costard]

I think the issue isn't the value of the service so much as the value of the trust that is placed with Fox.

In a market situation, the value ascribes to the monetary outcome - who makes money by believing in the information provided has disccerned the "true" value of the information prvovided: they are rewarded, they prove the truth.

Where this evaluation of trust is abused, that is, where the predictive value of the information turns out to be detrimental to the wealth of the group of people thus informed; the value of the commonwealth, as a whole and determined by an analysis of the group wealth, shown to be decreasing instead of inreasing.

Commonwealth - common wealth: that wealth to be held by the group in common. Not neccessarily to be held by the individual in the group, in fact to be held separate.

The myth (and it is a myth) that has been behind the growth in commonly held wealth of the globe's population is that of the English gentleman. He is Christian (whatever that means) and his word is his bond - he can be trusted. To a large extent this has made itself manifest in the english language: stories, tales, fiction and non-fiction have led to the promulgation of this myth. The immediate apparence of the value of scientific discoveries written about in the english language is a good example of the investment in the commonly held understading of our universe: it describes more than ninety percent of the increase in "knowledge" over the last 150 years. In the recent past, as the value of an understanding of our history has faded within common consciousness (who opted for history as a course in the eighties as a career?) a lesser understanding of the counter-truth: that you can make more, quicker through the use of deceit and misinformation, has made it's way to the leadership of the race, [sure, they had other concerns, mostly about the increasing vectors of information, but this hardly credits them (the leadership) with guidance to a secure future; the message has been "believe, and it will be so."] With this decay in the values of our leadership has parallelled a decay in the common wealth; the true value of vital infastructure, including "racial memory", "tradition" "culture" and "law", as well as roads, buildings, communications and industry,

the prevalence of corruption and corrupt practices (which eat directly into the taxable returns of investors, by the way) leads to the inevitable decay of the society that supports the value of "the common wealth". It loses wealth whilst convincing itself that it lives on, getting better all the time, and doing so for the conceivable future..

Trust in yourselves, but feel that which you feel. Fool your boss, your wife, God, whoever - don't fool yourselves about the way you feel.

You cannot grant a leadership role (what is a leader without a group to lead?) where you cannot trust the leader. It just doesn't work.

[costard]

The above may make sense. If it does, it was pure fluke: a case of beer and half a dozen jaeger bombs does predicable things to a person and their arguments. Apologies to those who have struggled through it.

[Michael Emrys]

The above may make sense.

It sort of does, at least in places. But there are "discontinuities" of logic in a few places, if you catch my drift. Like you may have left out a step or two. That said, the parts I think I understand, I mostly agree with. But then of course I may be mistaken about that. I hope this puts things on a clarified basis.

Michael

[dieseltaylor]

http://www.youtube.com/user/LiberalViewer

That is probably the most sickening thing I have ever watched. I regard honesty in broadcasting as a duty. If the situation in the US is such that there is no body with oversight on malevolent "broadcating" what hope is there for America!

Surely this requires a law suit? But I would prefer a system where the presenters/writers are banned from the media for a year and the station placed on warning. Misrepresenting in such a blatant manner is the most disgusting and destructive thing broadcasting can do to a society.

[Lt Belenko]

There are many things/opinions in the news and on the internet I don't agree with. But I don't call for shutting them down or regulating them. It's called FREEDOM of THE PRESS.

When I don't like something I see on the media I have the flipper I have the power. When I don't like something I see on the internet I have the mouse I have the power.

It's called FREEDOM of MY FLIPPER.

This is America (at least I'm in America) and sloppy reporting has been around for a long time-Dan Rather and the GWB Air National Guard records. There weren't too many calls for regulation at that time.

Perhaps America should adapt some some control in the media and follow those two fine news organizations: Tass And Pravda.

Jay Rockefeller D-WV recently called for regulation of the media, which reminded me of an old poem (adapted slightly):

They came for Juan Williams and I said nothing

And when they came for FOX and I said nothing...

There is one thing that should be shut down: Political discussions on BFC forums.

[dieseltaylor]

Lt. - Astonishing. I would have thought that was indefensible. Perhaps it is, so you reach for the concept of Freedom of the press no matter how crass the action.

I agree with your right not to watch anything you do not wish to see. The nub seems to be you seem to think that if somebody in the media lies then that is Freedom of the Press. Or perhaps you are suggesting that any attempt to punish reporters or the media from lying is a bad thing. That Joe Public has the time or inclination to check that there news service is not lying, and if they catch on the perpetrators will in some way be punished. Dream on.

Free press/Lying - it is possible that lying does not have to occur. And unless some action is taken to root out that abuse the notion of Freedom of the Press then things can only get worse. Now perhaps there may be a start on Ignobles for the Press in the US. Interesting to see the coverage that might get. Still if its International with an awards ceremony in Sweden then the US will have a good chance for awards competing even against othe Free presses in democracies.

On the collapse of the American press David Halberstam -- November 7, 1999:

I thought that with the end of the century approaching, it might be a good time to take stock of where this profession is. Obviously,

it should be a brilliant moment in American journalism

, a time of a genuine flowering of a journalistic culture . . .

But the reverse is true.

Those to whom the most is given, the executives of our three networks, have steadily moved away from their greatest responsibilities, which is using their news departments to tell the American people complicated truths, not only about their own country, but about the world around us. . . .

What I think is happening is something extremely serious,

nothing less than a change in the value system

in a very important part of the news business.

At the core of the old value system was a belief on the part of the men and women who worked in journalism that this was an uncommonly privileged life, that we did not do this for the money --

almost all of us could have made a great deal more money in some other field, but we were uncommonly privileged, free men and free women working for a free press in a free society, beneficiaries of exalted constitutional freedoms

, willing, if need be on occasion, to report to the nation things which it did not necessarily want to hear.

What has changed is not the talent and idealism and passion of the journalists out there,

but the value system which governs the way they work, and finally what gets in the paper or on the air

. . . .

A number of things stand out in the change of values which has come about in the last decade or so. Because of its growing power and influence and because of the ever-greater competition, not just network against network, but network against cable show, the television executive producers have

redefined what constitutes news

-- often going for stories that television likes to cover, stories which are telegenic, because they have action or are sexy or are tabloid- or scandal-driven.

We have morphed in the larger culture from a somewhat Calvinist society to an entertainment society, and that is reflected in the new norms of television journalism -- where the greatest sin is not to be wrong but to be boring. Because boring means low ratings. And so altogether too many people at the top in the television newsrooms have accepted the new, frillier dictates of the men and women above them in the corporations.

But the quantum change had come with the coming of cable, and the fierce new competition generated by cable news shows, which were primarily about sex, scandal and celebrity. Or celebrity, sex and scandal. Soon, we began to see a willingness on the part of the networks -- their own audience fragmenting, their ratings down -- to embrace, particularly in their magazines, these tabloid values as their own.

Magazines which were essentially tabloid were inexpensive to produce, more so than sitcoms, seemed to have acceptable ratings, and so they proliferated under the guise of being news. And a great many of our colleagues went along with it -- for immense salaries and a great deal of air time, of course. . . .

Somewhere in there, gradually, but systematically,

there has been an abdication of responsibility within the profession

, most particularly in the networks.

Television's gatekeepers, at a time when a fragmenting audience threatens the singular profits of the past, stopped being gatekeepers and began to look the other way on moral and ethical and journalistic issues. Less and less did they accept the old-fashioned charge for what they owed the country.

The viewpoint seemed to be -- from their testing and polling -- that the American people did not want to know what was going on, so why bother them with unwanted facts too soon?

So, if we look at the media today, we ought to be aware not just of what we are getting, but what we are not getting; the difference between what is authentic and what is inauthentic in contemporary American life and in the world, with a warning that in this celebrity culture, the forces of the inauthentic are becoming more powerful all the time

.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2007/04/24/halberstam_press/

PS. Is bad Press a political discussion or a moral one?

[Lt Belenko]

DT

Excellent article. Funny thing it was written when FOX was a fledgling network and minuscule market share.

Debate of the press is a good thing. But this thread is blasting FOX. FOX stands alone in its right wing points of view, yet you are calling for them to have controls. Please tell me some bad things the other networks have done then I'll consider this thread a "debate on the press" as opposed as an "attack on FOX'.

Fair and Balanced ya know ;^) OReilly does not claim to be "hard" news. He states often that his is an opinion show. There are other shows on the new work that are "hard" news. Please point out any short comings of those shows.

Lt. - Astonishing. I would have thought that was indefensible. Perhaps it is, so you reach for the concept of Freedom of the press no matter how crass the action.

Such as Wikileaks and all the other media outlets that published them.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

There's a bit of a difference between reporting the secret truth and reporting a provable outright lie and deception.

I've not got much problem with right leaning, but right lying should be a no-no. I too cannot fathom why they don't get their bollocks sued of on a regular basis. Freedom of the press isn't a permission slip to go Lord of the Flies.

[costard]

What percentage of the military budget does Fox receive?

Using your media outlets for propaganda is somewhat more defensible when your country is at war. At its base, this makes sense - you want people to be informed, you want them to be contributing more to the national effort, in the right ways. Generating a swell of popular opinion in your direction makes stuff easier to do: you might need to get approved for a larger slice of the tax pie, or you might be ensuring that the public has the will to continue the fight. In this cause, standards can be relaxed because you have to lower the level of intellectual capability at which your message will be understood. Of course, if you lower them too far, the message becomes somewhat tied up in emotional appeal and the sort of crass, entertaining behaviours that go along with an emotional debate.

A newspaper doesn't print to inform its readers - it prints to sell paper. The customer is prepared to pay for the paper because there is often information contained in the newspaper: advertising deals, for one. In the days when newspapers were local and rare, the need for the information contained within them was generally local and specific: this led to the real need on the part of the reporter to present accurate, or at least factually verifiable information. His/her customers were too likely to find out if they were being duped and the decisions they made based on the information presented would be too likely to affect the relationship between the customer and the publisher. Of course, the relationship could be affected by the exercise of power on the part of the customer, particularly if that customer was the king, president, head honcho of the area the paper was based in. Recognising this we have the myth of "freedom of the press" arise. It is considered so necessary that it is very nearly constitutionally covered by law in a lot of places now. So how does the other side of the relationship get regulated?

Mostly, it has been self-regulated by the adoption of a set of values ascribing to journalists. They are/have been passionately interested in the quality of the product they deliver, they want to produce accurate, "true" news. When an organisation like the press needs to promulgate a myth that directs the entirety of the organisation, they have found the instrument of the "code of ethics". These are law, but not quite: usually transgressions lead to an expulsion from the group, this course of action is less likely to be challenged in the courts. Doctors have the Hyppocratic Oath, Lawyers and priests have strict controls on what can be done with "privileged" information. So the reason you have a code of ethics is so that you don't have the decisions needing to be made by the members and leaders of the group being subject to regulation by the government through the exercise of the law. The banking community has got a little dumb on that one recently: the path they are taking will necessarily lead to the establishment of a code in law regulating the behaviour of bankers. They will be far less free because they are quite deliberately flouting their own code of ethics, hiding behind the need for court action before their actions can be acoounted for. What will happen to the newspapers?

Information dissemination has changed: where once it was local and rare, it has now reached saturation to the point where I can access the reporting of many thousands of reporters, belonging to many thousands of organisations in practically every geographical location on the globe. The information I seek to gather is not uniformly presented at the lowest level of intellectual capability (and here, by the way, is the mechanism that shows the market for the paper: your populace needs to be educated to read and comprehend before they can make use of the information in the paper.) I can get my information fix without needing to read anymore: tv, presenters, radio (not so much internet, but I suspect that's a statistical blip that will attenuate). The need for the information presented by the media organisation to be accurate, or at least factually verifiable, is just as great as it ever was.

Has anyone in government had much experience with turning a propaganda machine off?

The problem with Fox seems to be that the society it seeks to inform is being led to the abyss by trusting in the information presented there. If Fox believes it can escape the natural consequence of this, then it is thoroughly in the camp of (i.e. is owned by) the people doing the leading, the people needing to disseminate information.

[ASL Veteran]

The problem with Fox seems to be that the society it seeks to inform is being led to the abyss by trusting in the information presented there.

So ...... just so I can understand .... if you, "Costard", "Elmar", "DieselTaylor", etc start watching Fox News regularly then you will get brainwashed and have your world view and fundamental system of beliefs altered to match those of Bill O'Reilly?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

So ...... just so I can understand .... if you, "Costard", "Elmar", "DieselTaylor", etc start watching Fox News regularly then you will get brainwashed and have your world view and fundamental system of beliefs altered to match those of Bill O'Reilly?

Yes, if I rely on Fox for all my news I will eventually start to believe Fox-ey things. Several dictatorships successfully rely on this mechanic. Will I buy their baloney hook, line and sinker? Gosh, I hope not. But there be plenty who will.

This is of course not exclusive to Fox. But they do seem to be in a league of their own in regards to the deliberately mis-informing their viewers.

btw

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-20-2010/bernie-goldberg-fires-back

Teehee.

[JonS]

Using your media outlets for propaganda is somewhat more defensible when your country is at war.

War? Which war?

The one on drugs? Or the one on poverty? Hunger, maybe? Christmas (filthy heathens)? Science? What about the unexpected?

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Which is lucky, really, since it means that BS and lying is acceptable. In Costard's world, at least.