Did someone say FOX News was biased? - Page 2

Defiant · May 14, 2003, 16:42

You're right Sava,
We should trust more unbiased media avenues such as the Washington Post, NY Times and the LA Times, now there is some fictional reading.

Sava · May 14, 2003, 16:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Sava, I just happened to catch Cavuto's original editorial. It came at the very end of his show where he gives his opinion on some issue. No one watching at the time could have mistaken it as something else. That is what set Cavuto off, the NY Times report implied that Cavuto said this while reporting the news.

I can't wait, tough, to hear the response from Klugman. If he does respond, could someone post it here?

I should apologize, I'm just on another one of my "FOX news is the anti-christ" rants. I'm really not saying anything relevant to the discussion. I don't know whether Cavuto said what he said during the alloted "opinion" time. I'm saying it really doesn't matter because everything that comes from the FOX mother nipple is crap anyways.

Don't think I'm defending this Klugman guy either. I really could care less about him.

Sava · May 14, 2003, 16:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Defiant
You're right Sava,
We should trust more unbiased media avenues such as the Washington Post, NY Times and the LA Times, now there is some fictional reading.

Don't put words into my mouth.

HershOstropoler · May 14, 2003, 16:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

What do you mean by "creative?"

In terms of phrasing his abuse, and of inventing his "facts".

Bosh · May 14, 2003, 16:49

Quote:

just like you no doubt call yourself a journalist and a columnist

What an idiot. He could have done five minutes of research and found out that Krugman is an Economist and not a journalist. Just the kind of blind disregard of fact that makes Fox so beloved

Sava · May 14, 2003, 16:49

Quote:

Just the kind of blind disregard of fact that makes Fox so beloved

exactly!

Defiant · May 14, 2003, 16:50

There is my ole'buddy Boshkocommie.

FOX is still much much better than CNN Clinton News Network.

Sava · May 14, 2003, 16:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Defiant
There is my ole'buddy Boshkocommie.

FOX is still much much better than CNN Clinton News Network.

good call

considering CNN had 24/7 coverage of Monicagate

some are just beyond help

Bosh · May 14, 2003, 16:54

Quote:

FOX is still much much better than CNN Clinton News Network.

Yeah, CNN ****s up with the facts all the time. But nothing beats not even being able to tell the difference between an economist and a journalist while defending your journalistic integrity. This guy is almost as good as Geraldo Rivera

Defiant · May 14, 2003, 16:54

Monicagate....................

Defiant · May 14, 2003, 16:57

I'll have to admit Rivera is about the furthest thing from a journalist, but c'mon, FOX does really ask some very point blank questions, like why did NASCAR give 600,000 dollars to the Jessie Jackson Foundation. There is only one reason, payoff because there are very few minorities in NASCAR but no other news media I saw bought up this question of a payoff. O'Reilly did.

Bosh · May 14, 2003, 16:59

oh, and here's the Krugman column that FOX boy was *****inga about:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/13/opinion/13KRUG.html

The China Syndrome
By PAUL KRUGMAN

A funny thing happened during the Iraq war: many Americans turned to the BBC for their TV news. They were looking for an alternative point of view — something they couldn't find on domestic networks, which, in the words of the BBC's director general, "wrapped themselves in the American flag and substituted patriotism for impartiality."

Leave aside the rights and wrongs of the war itself, and consider the paradox. The BBC is owned by the British government, and one might have expected it to support that government's policies. In fact, however, it tried hard — too hard, its critics say — to stay impartial. America's TV networks are privately owned, yet they behaved like state-run media.

What explains this paradox? It may have something to do with the China syndrome. No, not the one involving nuclear reactors — the one exhibited by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation when dealing with the government of the People's Republic.

In the United States, Mr. Murdoch's media empire — which includes Fox News and The New York Post — is known for its flag-waving patriotism. But all that patriotism didn't stop him from, as a Fortune article put it, "pandering to China's repressive regime to get his programming into that vast market." The pandering included dropping the BBC's World Service — which reports news China's government doesn't want disseminated — from his satellite programming, and having his publishing company cancel the publication of a book critical of the Chinese regime.

Can something like that happen in this country? Of course it can. Through its policy decisions — especially, though not only, decisions involving media regulation — the U.S. government can reward media companies that please it, punish those that don't. This gives private networks an incentive to curry favor with those in power. Yet because the networks aren't government-owned, they aren't subject to the kind of scrutiny faced by the BBC, which must take care not to seem like a tool of the ruling party. So we shouldn't be surprised if America's "independent" television is far more deferential to those in power than the state-run systems in Britain or — for another example — Israel.

A recent report by Stephen Labaton of The Times contained a nice illustration of the U.S. government's ability to reward media companies that do what it wants. The issue was a proposal by Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, to relax regulations on media ownership. The proposal, formally presented yesterday, may be summarized as a plan to let the bigger fish eat more of the smaller fish. Big media companies will be allowed to have a larger share of the national market and own more TV stations in any given local market, and many restrictions on "cross-ownership" — owning radio stations, TV stations and newspapers in the same local market — will be lifted.

The plan's defects aside — it will further reduce the diversity of news available to most people — what struck me was the horse-trading involved. One media group wrote to Mr. Powell, dropping its opposition to part of his plan "in return for favorable commission action" on another matter. That was indiscreet, but you'd have to be very naïve not to imagine that there are a lot of implicit quid pro quos out there.

And the implicit trading surely extends to news content. Imagine a TV news executive considering whether to run a major story that might damage the Bush administration — say, a follow-up on Senator Bob Graham's charge that a Congressional report on Sept. 11 has been kept classified because it would raise embarrassing questions about the administration's performance. Surely it would occur to that executive that the administration could punish any network running that story.

Meanwhile, both the formal rules and the codes of ethics that formerly prevented blatant partisanship are gone or ignored. Neil Cavuto of Fox News is an anchor, not a commentator. Yet after Baghdad's fall he told "those who opposed the liberation of Iraq" — a large minority — that "you were sickening then; you are sickening now." Fair and balanced.

We don't have censorship in this country; it's still possible to find different points of view. But we do have a system in which the major media companies have strong incentives to present the news in a way that pleases the party in power, and no incentive not to.

----

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Sava · May 14, 2003, 17:00

Quote:

I'll have to admit Rivera is about the furthest thing from a journalist, but c'mon, FOX does really ask some very point blank questions, like why did NASCAR give 600,000 dollars to the Jessie Jackson Foundation. There is only one reason, payoff because there are very few minorities in NASCAR but no other news media I saw bought up this question of a payoff. O'Reilly did.

sure... Fox likes to point out the moral mis-givings of everyone who isn't rich-white and Republican...

Sava · May 14, 2003, 17:07

Quote:

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Actually, that was quite a good article. I can understand why Cavuto, paid employee of Murdoch, would take exception to an article pointing out what's wrong with America's media.

Ned · May 14, 2003, 17:24

"We don't have censorship in this country; it's still possible to find different points of view. But we do have a system in which the major media companies have strong incentives to present the news in a way that pleases the party in power, and no incentive not to."

Sava, et al., How does this square with your previous statement that CNN savaged Clinton? (Of course, FOX did as well.)

I think Krugman is full of it. Even if the powers that be in DC tried to pull strings to influence media, the media normally will have none of it. They have been highly critical of sitting presidents, including CNN during the Clinton years.

What I think Krugman was doing is telling people to read the NY Times because it could not be influenced by the FCC into being deferential to the Government.

JohnT · May 14, 2003, 17:26

Yeah, it's just deferential to the EEOC in promoting unqualified and blatantly dishonest employees.

Nubclear · May 14, 2003, 17:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
The big difference is that there is an editorial section of the paper where opinionated pieces are seperated from the news. On Fox, there is no such distinction.

Anytime a news network continuously tells you its "Fair and Balanced", you know its gonna be blatant propaganda because if they were fair and balanced, they would not shove it in your face.

They know that if you simply repeat yourself over and over, people will eventually come to you.....

Sava · May 14, 2003, 17:31

Quote:

Sava, et al., How does this square with your previous statement that CNN savaged Clinton?

huh? How is this at all relevant to the discussion. I simply pointed the Monicagate affair out to dispell Defiant's assertion that CNN was the Clinton News Network.

Ned · May 14, 2003, 17:42

CNN's bashing of Clinton is highly relevant if one is to accept Krugman's thesis that the reason Fox is biased in favor of the war is because of government regulation of broadcast networks.

This is a real slimy piece by Krugman. I agree with Cavuto.

Sava · May 14, 2003, 17:56

Quote:

CNN's bashing of Clinton is highly relevant if one is to accept Krugman's thesis that the reason Fox is biased in favor of the war is because of government regulation of broadcast networks.

That's not entirely what the piece said. He just cited those examples.

Quote:

This is a real slimy piece by Krugman. I agree with Cavuto.

oh yeah, informing the public about the abuses of media conglomerates... HOW SLIMY

Boris Godunov · May 14, 2003, 18:50

After reading Krugman's piece, I have even more contempt for Cavuto. He's a sleazeball trying to weasel out of his blatant bias when presenting the news. Name me one other reputable news source where the anchors are also given time as commentators. It is such a conflict of interest that I'm surprised people are so blase about it.

Were Dan Rather or Tom Brokaw given segments in which to espouse their own political views, do you think that would be a reasonable way of presenting information to the public? Why should we be listening to an anchor's opinion anyway? Their job is to report the news, not tell me what to think about it.

Sava · May 14, 2003, 18:55

Boris... the continuing voice of intelligence and reason (and I'm not just trying to get you in the sack)

Kronkite (spelling) was the best news anchor because he reported the news and didn't insert his own opinions.

Oerdin · May 14, 2003, 19:06

Krugman is a swine and (surprise!) so is Cavuto. The thing is Cavuto doesn't have the pretenious air about him and that's why I like him better.

Sava · May 14, 2003, 19:14

Cavuto reminds me of this little fat kid who tried to bully everyone in fourth grade... some people were scared of his demeanor, but I promptly kicked his ass

Ned · May 14, 2003, 19:16

Actually, you guys may not know this, but at least CBS news, and perhaps all the others as well, ran daily opinion pieces at the end. On CBS evening news, IIRC, it was Eric Severeid that most often gave us the opinion piece. But Cronkite is famous for coming out against the Vietnam war.

The opinion pieces were carefully packaged and labeled as opinion. The news was given straight and seemingly without political bias (but we all know how that can be done while still biasing the news). The question is, why did the major networks stop giving opinions at one point in time?

I suspect, but do not know, is that the so-called fairness doctrine forced them to stop after someone filed and won a lawsuit forcing "equal time."

Boris Godunov · May 14, 2003, 19:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava

Boris... the continuing voice of intelligence and reason (and I'm not just trying to get you in the sack)

So what, in addition to getting me in the sack, are you trying to do?

Oerdin · May 14, 2003, 19:21

As long as they come out and tell you "This segment is an editorial" then I don't have a problem with it, but, when they're giving me the news I want it to be like Dragnet "Just the facts, ma'am".

Sava · May 14, 2003, 19:22

I don't even mind Cronkite's opinions about Vietnam. When such an immoral, unjust, and terribly wrong action occurs by a Democratic nation, it would be wrong to try and not express your opinions about it.

Sava · May 14, 2003, 19:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

So what, in addition to getting me in the sack, are you trying to do?

Lincoln · May 14, 2003, 19:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
After reading Krugman's piece, I have even more contempt for Cavuto. He's a sleazeball trying to weasel out of his blatant bias when presenting the news. Name me one other reputable news source where the anchors are also given time as commentators. It is such a conflict of interest that I'm surprised people are so blase about it.

Were Dan Rather or Tom Brokaw given segments in which to espouse their own political views, do you think that would be a reasonable way of presenting information to the public? Why should we be listening to an anchor's opinion anyway? Their job is to report the news, not tell me what to think about it.

Yes Dan Rather is the epitome of fair and unbiased news reporting, just like Newsmax. As for Tom Brokaw, he is much better in at least attempting to be fair to the actual news withour the subtle bias that Rather interjects in almost all of his "reporting."