Did someone say FOX News was biased?

[Bereta_Eder]

The Iraqi Information Minister is more credible and less patriotic than Fox. 'nuff said.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Boshko

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

What an idiot. You could have done one minute of research and found out that Krugman is a professor of Economics and International Relations at Princeton and a journalist / columnist for the New York Times.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Sava
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.

He had an opinion segment at the end of the newscast at least once a week, and more often after Erich Severeid retired.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Boshko

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

Which makes you..?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Imran is correct, they do often throw in editorial segments at the end of their news. NBC has fleecing of America, ABC has John Stossel, and CBS has Andy Rooney

There's a big difference between an opinion piece given by someone who is there for the express purpose of giving their opinion, like Stoessel and Roony, and a news anchor being given time to express an opinion. The latter stinks, because it blurs the lines between editorial and reporting, as viewers are relying on an anchor for factual reporting. I don't give a rat's ass what Jennings' opinion is, I just want the facts of the story.

Cavuto is getting his panties in a bunch over accusations of bias, but it's so obvious he is biased it's ridiculous for him to be so vitriolic about it. But his vitriol is just another stunt to get attention and please the lowest denominator of FOX viewers, so it's done its job.

[JohnT]

"Yes, CNN sucks. Many ways - like pandering to Bush, by eliminating critical passages from a Blix report on their website. Please."

I pretty much conclusively proved that these allegations were false, even to those on this board who brought it to our attention. Shiite, let me find the thread again... I'll be back.

[JohnT]

Didn't take long.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by JohnT
"Yes, CNN sucks. Many ways - like pandering to Bush, by eliminating critical passages from a Blix report on their website. Please."

I pretty much conclusively proved that these allegations were false, even to those on this board who brought it to our attention. Shiite, let me find the thread again... I'll be back.

They left it out, deliberate or not. You're forgetting that I was talking to GP, so the finer issues like motives are not relevant.

But if you disagree on the relevance, you could also explain to George that maybe CNN's omissions about Saddam did not exactly emenate from an ardent love for ridiculous black moustaches.

[GePap]

Krugman is not a journalist: he is paid to write an opinion piece. Cavuto acts as if he were an anchor, but the fact is that all news people on FOX give editorials all the time, and they are inherently conservative 100% of the time.

Oh, and I love it how the main part of Krugman's article, how this wonderfully, freedom loving newscorp panders and grovels at the feet of the chinese communist leadership (to the extent of dropping one of the most respected news outlets in the world becuase it actually reports on Chinese abuses) is utterly ignored. guess critizicing dems. and liberals in the west is OK, but not the Chinese goevrnment: I will wait for someone here to praise these actions from newscorp, since of course, Murdoch and his little news empire could do no wrong.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


There's a big difference between an opinion piece given by someone who is there for the express purpose of giving their opinion, like Stoessel and Roony, and a news anchor being given time to express an opinion. The latter stinks, because it blurs the lines between editorial and reporting, as viewers are relying on an anchor for factual reporting. I don't give a rat's ass what Jennings' opinion is, I just want the facts of the story.

Cavuto is getting his panties in a bunch over accusations of bias, but it's so obvious he is biased it's ridiculous for him to be so vitriolic about it. But his vitriol is just another stunt to get attention and please the lowest denominator of FOX viewers, so it's done its job.

Boris, I think Cavuto admits he has a bias and is even proud of it. Re-read his piece. That is not what is making him mad.

Now, as to anchor's giving opinions in special segments, you can see that this is as old as broadcast news. The complaint, of course, by both the left and the right, is that reporters and anchors are spinning the news itself. This is a justified complaint to the extent it is true.

What Krugman was saying was that the reason FOX was biased in favor of the war is because of government pressure. Now, to me, that is incredible. Why FOX and no other broadcast network?

[DaShi]

They should report on CBeasts!

[GePap]

What kurgman was saying is that no other network lets it anchors (as opposed to hosts and opinion people) give little editorials. Fox lets all its people give appropriately conservative ones.

Oh, and he needed to bring up fox, since it is the only news nework in the US owned by Chinese-communist buttkissing Murdoch.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
Oh, and I love it how the main part of Krugman's article, how this wonderfully, freedom loving newscorp panders and grovels at the feet of the chinese communist leadership (to the extent of dropping one of the most respected news outlets in the world becuase it actually reports on Chinese abuses) is utterly ignored. guess critizicing dems. and liberals in the west is OK, but not the Chinese goevrnment: I will wait for someone here to praise these actions from newscorp, since of course, Murdoch and his little news empire could do no wrong.

Of course pandering to dictators to get reporters into a country is wrong. We should always condemn it.

GePap, what was your position on CNN's pandering to Saddam?

[GePap]

CNN was wrong, but the issues are not the same, since in this case we are talking about providing news service within the repressive regime being spoken about, not providing news about it elsewhere, into markets with plenty of competition to make up for CNN's failures. CNN was self-serving, while Murdoch is self-serving and helping out the Chinese as well.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
What kurgman was saying is that no other network lets it anchors (as opposed to hosts and opinion people) give little editorials. Fox lets all its people give appropriately conservative ones.

Oh, and he needed to bring up fox, since it is the only news nework in the US owned by Chinese-communist buttkissing Murdoch.

I think he was bringing up FOX because FOX was pro-war. He was trying to explain why FOX, and perhaps other broadcast netwoks, were pro-government: the FCC. However, on its face, this is ludicrous given the anti-government stance of virtually everyother broadcast news outlet that is also regulated by the FCC.

[gsmoove23]

JohnT, your arguement wasn't conclusive. Its simply an arguement for reasonable doubt and since I don't find it reasonable to believe a news organization would accidently drop an important part of a text that referred to actually going to the site and finding nothing I would have to say I don't agree with it.

[GePap]

However, on its face, this is ludicrous given the anti-government stance of virtually everyother broadcast news outlet that is also regulated by the FCC.

Krugman's piece is all about ownership (all the netwoekrs, with Fox being only thr far worst, wrapped themselves in the flag). There might be differences in what is emphazised, but all US news networks stick to a very small set of news, and they are NOT nearly as aggressive versus the powers that be as news outlets in many other countries with a free press. Which leads to the point Krugman is making: news in the US is owned privately. In theory then, it should be more trustworthy than a state run service like the BCC< bu the BBC is much more trustworthy, sicne it can keep its news integroty without having to try to gain brownie points with politicans in order to get better deals. Since de-regulation in 1996, more and more of our sources of info are owned by less and less hands, which has degraded the quality, if not quantity, of information.

[gsmoove23]

Ned, he was talking about a larger phenemenon in the country with Fox as the clearest example. He could have also mentioned ClearChannel which has also benefitted greatly by the relaxing of regulations and funded pro-war rallies all across the country, banned the Dixie Chicks, etc...

After reading the Krugman piece I have to say it makes Cavuto's response look pretty damn pitiful. He doesn't even take the time to address any of Krugman's stronger points and just nit-picks at a tiny bit of his arguement. Reminds me of some posters.

He dosesn't even address the more interesting question of why any anchor or editorializer of a news organization would be saying "they are sickening; they sicken me." I've never read or seen an editorial like that on ANY respected media.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Lancer
More people are watching FOX than are watching CNN.



Read em and weep.

More people voted for Gore than for Bush.



Read em and weep.

[Ned]

GePaP, the newspapers are not regulated by the government and therefor should be more free to scutinized it, right. Note that the opinion piece was publiched in the NY Times, a newspaper.

What I do not get, GePap, is how Krugman can single out FOX with an attack that is generic to all FCC-regulated broadcast networks. Krugman never did tie that knot.

[GePap]

He attacked Fox because it is owned BY Newscorp, and Newscorp is the main target for this attack, based on its behavior with the Chinese. If Newscorp is the main target, why then would be he talk about outlets owned by AOL-Time Warner, Disney, GE, and so forth, specially if they are not trying to make deals with govs. like Newscorp is in China?

What Kurgamn is saying is this: when pirvately owned media corporations change their product to appease governments, they degrade the service we get: example, Newscorp oin China, and perhaps now this will happen in the US as well.

And then there is what gsmoove said: calling people "sickening" because they have a different opinion from you is almost slanderous, almost beyond editorial, but not beyond what news outlets trying to pander politically (like stet owned media in places like China) would say.

[Ned]

GePaP, I tend to agree that private news organizations should not agree to be muzzled by governments. Perhaps we can convince Fox to stop dishonest reporting in China if we threatened to pull their plug in the United States. Would you support that? Isn't that what Krugman is advocating?

But, what then do we do about newspapers publishing in China? Do we shut them down too? Should we shut down the New York Times publishing in the United States for example for having a Beijing edition that is censored by Communist Chinese?

Where is Krugman going with this?

[GePap]

But, what then do we do about newspapers publishing in China? Do we shut them down too? Should we shut down the New York Times publishing in the United States for example for having a Beijing edition that is censored by Communist Chinese?

But yuour very point shows the difference: if the NYtomes puts out a China edition (which it does not) and then it [b]gets[/b censopred by the Chinese, then fault lies with the Chinese, sicne they are the ones censoring the truth. But Murodch is self-censoring, to appease the Chinese government and to get access to private broadcasting rights within China. You found CNN;s self-censorship to be terrible in Iarq, and I agree, and that is Krugmans point: when the press censors itself (when it creates its outpot based on political considerations) then the press is compramised, and what he finds strange is that the BBC, a state run service, provides more balanced reporting about their own government (thier bosses) than many private TV sources (I would say all, but PBS, another public one).

[Defiant]

Guy,
That shows the genius of the electoral college and our forefathers in not letting the east coast and west coast run our country, have to give some true voting rights to the little states (you know, we are not just fly over country). The right man won so a double

[Ned]

GePap, I must admit that I do not understand the distinction you are making about self-censorship and censorship. The strory says that Murdock dropped BBC from his Chinese lineup, and stopped publication of a book critical of the Chinese. Is this worse, in your opinion, than a newspaper allowing the Chinese government to review stories before they are published?

I think CNN admitted to the very same thing as Murdock. They did not publish anti-Saddam material while Murdock did not publish anti-Chinese material.

So both are guilty but only one is being attacked by the NY Times. I detect some bias here.

But this does illustrate a general principle. Worldwide news organizations seem to kowtow to dictators. This would seem to indicate that we cannot trust them to be honest in their reporting concerning such dictators. CNN admits it with respect to Saddam and other Arab countries. What does FOX say about China? Do they self-censor?

[gsmoove23]

CNN never admitted to letting the Iraqi government review their articles, or not publishing anti-Saddam material. The only thing they admitted to was not writing about certain acts of cruelty and intimidation to their staff in Baghdad, which would have endangered the lives of those individuals.

The two instances are very different.

[Berzerker]

CyberGnu -

Berzerker, so your position is that since conservatives in the year 2003 has more in common with liberals living in the year 2003 than the founding fathers who lived in 1774, that defines their ideology?

No, it shows where on a left-right spectrum they are - closer to the liberals than people adhering to the Constitution. There are some conservatives who still believe in constitutional limits, but they've mostly formed or joined other political parties, like the Libertarian and Constitutional parties.

What about me then? I have significantly more in common with modern social democrats than I have with king Gustav III - does that make m a socialist?

If social democrats are socialists, then yes. If they aren't, then no. But I would question if there really is a difference between social democrats and monarchs, both presume to have the authority to dictate how others live. The fact a monarch may have this power to himself while social democrats have to share the power with others doesn't matter to me.

Anyway, the point is that you can't really define the ideology by 230 year old standards (unless you interpret "conservative" literally, in which case you can't juxtaposition it with "liberal" anyway).

That 230 year old standard is called the Constitution which is still supposed to be the law of the land, not that liberals and most conservatives care.

[gsmoove23]

Berzerker, get a grip, everyone is following their interpretation of the constitution, as are you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

gsmoove:

Now you started it!! Bezerker believes there is only ONE possible interpretation of the Constitution, and he is one of the few that actually follows (knows?) it.

Watch out for long-ass posts ahead!!

[Defiant]

Berzerker knows his political sh**, you would be wise to listen.