|
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.
___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/
|
