TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- I hate Fox News
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

I hate Fox News

Do any TA's watch Fox news? It really bothers me that a news organization, which is suppose to be mostly objective in their reporting, has a profound right wing agenda that it wants to press onto people. I remember watching the Iraq war coverage on Fox news and there was always a "lets kill'em all" vibe to it. And sometimes it was more blatant, Fox news anchors were also very anti-French, German because of their opposition of the war and anti-UN because the UN wants to tame America somehow. But then again CNN seems to be a puppet for the DNC.

Re: I hate Fox News

quote:

Originally posted by PHALPAX Do any TA's watch Fox news? It really bothers me that a news organization, which is suppose to be mostly objective in their reporting, has a profound right wing agenda that it wants to press onto people. I remember watching the Iraq war coverage on Fox news and there was always a "lets kill'em all" vibe to it. And sometimes it was more blatant, Fox news anchors were also very anti-French, German because of their opposition of the war and anti-UN because the UN wants to tame America somehow. But then again CNN seems to be a puppet for the DNC.

Yes, I watch FOX news from time to time. Emphasis, on time to time. I normally watch international news. I watch CNN occasionally, but they irritate me, because the topics I would like to hear more about they speak of for a total of two seconds, and the topics that should be put to rest continue on for days. This also could be why I prefer the paper...

FNC slants to the right - no doubt. But it slants far less to the right than CNN and MSNBC slant to the left. That's why I watch it. The fact is, you'll see stories on there that aren't covered at all anywhere else, where as the the major news networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN) all run virtually the same stories with the same spin.

Take for example Brit Hume's 1 hour show, Special Report. On Wednesday, when the Supreme Court decision came down on campaign finance reform, they did 20 minutes of analysis with three different guests. One was a federal election commissioner, one was from the DNC, and one was from the RNC. The other news networks barely covered the story, yet it was a case that had more bearing on our 1st Amendment rights than any other in the last 30 years. NBC Nightly News had less than 30 seconds of coverage. Who's keeping who in the dark?

Also, with regards to war coverage and international coverage, the liberal wing of the journalist field seems to think you need to give up your citizenship to have proper coverage. I disagree. Reuters, for example, does not use the word "terrorist" when describing guerilla attacks against American troops. FNC, as an American network, describes the attacks for what they are. Terrorist attacks against our troops. Journalism is a profession, but the anchors on Fox have made the proper distinction. It is only a profession - you are an American first, then a journalist.

Now, FNC definitely isn't perfect. They've tried to get to the Oprah demographic by having one hour around lunchtime where they have a live studio. It's kind of like CNN used to have with Talkback Live, and I couldn't watch that show either. I am also not a big fan of the trial coverage on cases like Scott Petersen. We have Court TV for that.

But on the whole, they are a competent news network. And their coverage is the reason why that they're getting double CNN's ratings in basically every time slot. The American public is sick and tired of being fed the same crap from the established networks, and they're particularly tired of being looked down upon by "world view" journalists who seem to forget that Western freedoms are the reason they have free speech in the first place.

I do have to agree with imokruok on one point, they do cover many stories other stations do not. But since I can only watch T.V. if I'm at my parents (no TV in my apartment ), I stick with the paper rather than battle it out somewhere on campus *chuckle*

quote:

I hate Fox News

welcome to the club.

I actually think that MSNBC is perhaps the most neutral out of the 24 hour cable news stations. Theres basically 2 conservative commentators (Joe Scarborough & Tim Russert) and 2 liberal commentators (Jesse Ventura & Keith Olbermann)which in way covers the entire political spectrum and eveything else is pretty much read in Associated Press like objective style, which can be boring but politically correct.

quote:

welcome to the club

Hey! You're in Montreal. Turn off that American TV, or the CRTC will do it for you!

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok Hey! You're in Montreal. Turn off that American TV, or the CRTC will do it for you!

I have access to it but trust me, i don't watch american tv, heck, i barely watch any tv.

the crap posted on their news website and all the fox quoting made by the zionists here is enough to make my own mind.

imokurok makes some very good points. And like I've said before there are certainly some segments of FNC that are pretty sad to watch (mainly the Fox & Friends morning show hosted by trained monkeys), though they're not really any different from the other crappy morning shows you get on any other network--i.e. Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, etc. Morning news shows in general suck--they're geared toward stay at home moms who have little knowledge and understanding of what's going on anyway, so in that sense FNC is no worse than any other news channel out there.

I've also said that, despite some of Fox's more conservative hosts(Hannity, O'Reilly), they certainly have some reporters/shows that represent the opposite side(Colmes), and they do a great job of at least interviewing people with a lot of different opinions on multiple sides of an issue, and do a good job of asking questions that other networks simply don't have the guts to ask.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I've also said that, despite some of Fox's more conservative hosts(Hannity, O'Reilly), they certainly have some reporters/shows that represent the opposite side(Colmes)

ah yes, but Colmes is really the only liberal on FNC....although some people say that Colmes is just a self-described moderate, but that is another argument.

I wont watch FOX or most other news stations cuz they follow the "action news" format which isnt really news at all. I dont need a plot of emotional death/accident stories, riddled with subtle catch phrases and buzz words that mess with your view of the events.

I've been watching FOX News recently, and each time they interview someone, they NEVER let the interviewee finish the answer of THEY'RE questions! In the end the viewer ends up getting little out of the interview...what a waste of time.

Sounds like a typical episode of O'Reilly!

While I do actually believe that Fox News is slowly becoming more self-consciously impartial (i.e. my incinations towards laughing aloud or putting my foot through the screen are becoming more infreqent) they are still ostensibly to the extreme right of CNNs centrism.

So, having said that, moving on to what Imokruok said:

quote:

FNC slants to the right - no doubt. But it slants far less to the right than CNN and MSNBC slant to the left.

CNN slants to the left? For me, it's a sign of a good network when the rightists accuse it of pandering to liberal hippies and the leftists accuse it of being little more than a biased arm of the US government. If that doesn't spell centrism (or impartiality, more to the point) then I'm not sure what does.

Further more, why do you say CNN slants to the left (I'm not familiar enough with MSNBC to comment - is that the one with Tom Brokaw or whatever his name is? - but the same question goes for them too)? Because they actually pose stories presenting what the Bush government has done wrong as well as what it's done right? Because they aren't afraid to comment on what's going wrong in the Iraq conflict? If you had watched BBC world, then CNN you would recognise just how much negativity was left out of the CNN coverage, deliberately or otherwise. I actually see CNN as a good, largely impartial news provider - easily the best of the American news networks - but when you claim they "slant to the left", by any objective definition, it merely highlights how skewed your political views must be to the right.

quote:

The fact is, you'll see stories on there that aren't covered at all anywhere else

I agree. Every time I turn it on I am bombarded with either the facts of Scott/Laci Petersen case (in such a brilliantly presented manner that - even several months on - I still don't actually know what this case is about) or just another instance of the Federal/Supreme courts attempting to rob you poor folk of your traditional American values -yet the more global networks tend to lack the degree of self-congratulatory coverage on these issues when compared to Fox News for some strange reason.

quote:

Also, with regards to war coverage and international coverage, the liberal wing of the journalist field seems to think you need to give up your citizenship to have proper coverage.

It's called self-enforced impartiality. The job of news networks is not (or should not be) to present a parochial spin on every event covered, it should be to report the bare facts. I'm curious to know what you mean by the phrase "to give up your citizenship"? Is citizenship based on the principle that governmental edicts must be adhered to - including those concerning the largely semantic issue of what does and does not constitute terrorism - and that the administrational line must be towed at every opportunity? FNC are not partriots, they are jingoistic biggots. There's a difference between loving your country and believing that it is right to subtly - via semantic "retuning" - skew stories in your governments favour time and time again. Do you believe that the FNC will be quite so acquiescent to the whims of the Democratic party when they ascend into power and start asserting their own definitions of terrorism, democracy, liberty, justice or freedom? Will it necessitate the renunciation of one's citizenship to question the legitmacy upon which the definition of these concepts are framed - or ennunciated explicitly via policy - when the Bush administration are no longer in power?

Once again, if patriotism is inextricably linked to acquiescence, then I should expect the same lack of anti-governmental dissent when the Democracts are in power. Sadly, however, like I say, the FNC is not interested in being "patriotic" by this definition or any other, it's only aim is to immerse itself in jingoistic far-rightism. When the Democrats are in power, this entire line of "unequivocally supporting the government during war time" will be dropped quicker than Bill Clinton's trousers, believe me. The sooner you understand that Fox News is subservient only to said jingoism and intense biggotry, the sooner you may be released from its powerful grasp and it's claims to "fair and unbalanced "news" ".

And as for you Shakka:

quote:

I've also said that, despite some of Fox's more conservative hosts(Hannity, O'Reilly), they certainly have some reporters/shows that represent the opposite side(Colmes), and they do a great job of at least interviewing people with a lot of different opinions on multiple sides of an issue

All Fox News does is present cardboard cut-outs of the "liberal" prespective and then pelt them with biased invective until they fall down. The views are presented then shouted down before they are properly ennunciated - there is never an attempt to engage in rational discourse, only the eternal erection of strawman liberal views so that they may be summarily burnt down.

If Hannity or O'Reilly actually let their interviewees (or at least those few who actually disagree with the views these two claim to espouse) speak and properly provide their opinions without being drawn into shouting matches or illguided, invective laden wars with no pretense towards rationality or impartiality, then I may begin to agree with you that Fox News is an impartial "news" provider. As it stands though, this clearly is not the case.

Come on now. I agree that O'reilly has his moments when he will lambast his guests and cut them off mid sentence, but it's not a nightly occurance that all guests are always cut off and never get to make a point. The problem I have with him is his tendency to cut off people and talk over them when he sees a fault in their argument instead of just letting them finish their sentence before attacking their statement. He certainly can be impulsive like that, but his guests generally always get to make it clear how and why they feel about a particular subject. He tends to cut people off more when they dance around a question instead of just giving a straight forward answer--and I don't have a problem with that at least. But some leeway is certainly granted in his case.

i love bill o'rilley, he doesnt take shit from anyone. he fights for rationality in a irrational world.

most news agency in america subconsiously get into our minds and flood us with propaganda. but they dont call it propaganda, they call it news. we seem to associate propaganda with rogue nations and things of that sort. like goebbels, and the third reich.

quote:

Originally posted by Heinz i love bill o'rilley, he doesnt take shit from anyone. he fights for rationality in a irrational world.

huh? james carville put him in his place back in early 2002 IIRC, of course it wasnt televised since o'reilly got stomped on hard.

[obnoxious accent]"Would I lie to you?"[/obnoxious accent]





"Ugh! Oh my god, what is that thing??!! ahhh! OK, you win!"

Thanks for the Carville pic. All I could find was this one.

quote:

Originally posted by Heinz most news agency in america subconsiously get into our minds and flood us with propaganda. but they dont call it propaganda, they call it news. we seem to associate propaganda with rogue nations and things of that sort. like goebbels, and the third reich.

Irony: 6000 BC - 2003 AD.

If you think Alan Colmes is the only lib on Fox News then you need to ask mom and dad if you can stay up past your normal bedtime because Greta VanSustern is a lib and has a one hour show every week night, it is called On the Record .

Emrld

quote:

Originally posted by Emrld If you think Alan Colmes is the only lib on Fox News then you need to ask mom and dad if you can stay up past your normal bedtime because Greta VanSustern is a lib and has a one hour show every week night, it is called On the Record . Emrld

Yeah, I've seen Greta's show and to say she is a card carrying liberal is gut-wrenchingly laughable. I mean, her show tonight talks to Col. James Hickey about the capture of Saddam and what to do with him (not a biased person ) which in a small way displays the FNC's commitment to the Fairness Doctrine. To give you some leeway, Greta isn't really biased at all in a manner of speaking (at least on air), more so objective. Thus dispelling any argument that she leans either left or right, which is the way broadcasting should be.

chris matthews!!! hardball!!!

love his show!

NBC woo

quote:

Irony: 6000 BC - 2003 AD.

what?

Shakka, im guessing you werent there when carville and o'reilly did a live show together in Monterey, CA. O'Reilly got owned.

I've seen Greta VanSustern couple of times... thats liberal? she usually repeats the questions that have been asked a thousand times on fox over and over again.

As for chris matthews, his show is more like softball! his been a guest on a local radio talk show sevral times and he just disappoints. he should just stop pretending to be a democrat and just change parties already.

If you want to listen to a real hardcore liberal show, check out Ray Taliaferro, his the first to mention Project for New America in the states back in late 2001 IIRC, he also the most annoying person LOL. for a more moderate liberal host, I would recommend Bernie Ward. theres also Gene Burns whos an awsome libertarian.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.