Fox News: fair and balanced

[ChicagoTex]

Unless you are a Neilson TV polling home, it doesn't matter if you turn them on or off.

Actually that's no longer true, most DVRs track what you watch for your TV company. It's only if you're on antenna or basic cable that you're truly watching without being counted.

Also, do you think that just because news is in print that it has any less bias than if it is on TV? Do you know why a newspaper is fairly cheap? They don't make their money on the sales of papers directly, they make it from advertising revenue. Do you think that this money coming in from certain advertisers has no bias on their reporting/reporters? Don't even get me started about the web based news outlets, many of them are even worse than the damn TV!

I wasn't saying all print or web sources are bias-free, but there is a much wider variety of sources to choose from in those mediums, some of which I actually do find meet my news-source standards.
The general consensus is all television news sources suck, but that's not true of print and web, where merely most suck - at least in my experience.

[Palmguy]

Are you addressing me? What about the first post entails reading? He simply posted a video and it was too much goddamned trouble for him to tell us what we are supposed to click on other than it portrays FoxNews in a negative light.

This is NOT Twitter, folks.

And to add to that, not all of us are able to see anything on YouTube as we are reading the forums...

[stifled]

Are you addressing me? What about the first post entails reading? He simply posted a video and it was too much goddamned trouble for him to tell us what we are supposed to click on other than it portrays FoxNews in a negative light.

This is NOT Twitter, folks.

Ohh, I clicked on the first ridiculous thing I saw, which was directly at the top. I kind of thought he was talking about that--whoops! I wasn't sincerely criticizing you, though. More making a joke about the thread in which people are complaining about M4c switching to 24 hour time.

One love

[Littlelebowski]

Ohh, I clicked on the first ridiculous thing I saw, which was directly at the top. I kind of thought he was talking about that--whoops! I wasn't sincerely criticizing you, though. More making a joke about the thread in which people are complaining about M4c switching to 24 hour time.

One love

No worries.

[SteyrAUG]

The business of making a compromise by saying "well, it's not as bad as <insert primary alternative here>" is exactly how we've gotten into as many political, social, and financial disasters as we have.

I refuse to give any televised news network one iota of my viewership because none of them meet my standards for integrity or accuracy. I refuse to be a member of any current political lobby for precisely the same reason. In political elections, I will vote independent or abstain if neither the running republican or democrat satisfy me.

Being second-worst isn't enough to get my endorsement, my time, or my money. There ARE other choices, and even if there weren't, I still wouldn't lend the unacceptable ones the illusion of my support.

So turn off the Fox News and shelve the "at least it's not CNN" justifications and find paper or web news sources that meet your demands, when the viewership and funding dry up, all the networks, including FNC will be forced to change accordingly.

The informed, skeptical and intelligent viewer will always be greatly numbered by those who think reality television and WWF are real. As a consequence our lack of viewership won't make any appreciable difference. And that is why network TV (and most of cable) is what it is.

[rickrock305]

The business of making a compromise by saying "well, it's not as bad as <insert primary alternative here>" is exactly how we've gotten into as many political, social, and financial disasters as we have.

I refuse to give any televised news network one iota of my viewership because none of them meet my standards for integrity or accuracy. I refuse to be a member of any current political lobby for precisely the same reason. In political elections, I will vote independent or abstain if neither the running republican or democrat satisfy me.

Being second-worst isn't enough to get my endorsement, my time, or my money. There ARE other choices, and even if there weren't, I still wouldn't lend the unacceptable ones the illusion of my support.

So turn off the Fox News and shelve the "at least it's not CNN" justifications and find paper or web news sources that meet your demands, when the viewership and funding dry up, all the networks, including FNC will be forced to change accordingly.

Agreed.

[Skyyr]

The business of making a compromise by saying "well, it's not as bad as <insert primary alternative here>" is exactly how we've gotten into as many political, social, and financial disasters as we have.

I refuse to give any televised news network one iota of my viewership because none of them meet my standards for integrity or accuracy. I refuse to be a member of any current political lobby for precisely the same reason. In political elections, I will vote independent or abstain if neither the running republican or democrat satisfy me.

Being second-worst isn't enough to get my endorsement, my time, or my money. There ARE other choices, and even if there weren't, I still wouldn't lend the unacceptable ones the illusion of my support.

So turn off the Fox News and shelve the "at least it's not CNN" justifications and find paper or web news sources that meet your demands, when the viewership and funding dry up, all the networks, including FNC will be forced to change accordingly.

Off topic, but I've noticed your posts go from flaming liberal to moderate liberal to almost libertarian in the last year or so. Good job (and I agree)!

[Zhurdan]

Actually that's no longer true, most DVRs track what you watch for your TV company. It's only if you're on antenna or basic cable that you're truly watching without being counted.



I wasn't saying all print or web sources are bias-free, but there is a much wider variety of sources to choose from in those mediums, some of which I actually do find meet my news-source standards.
The general consensus is all television news sources suck, but that's not true of print and web, where merely most suck - at least in my experience.

Digging for the truth in information always takes many sources. It always has and always will. Glad to know you search for the right places to find it.

Unfortunately, people that DO look for the truth are few and far between and most definitely NOT the target market of CNN/ABC/MSNBC/FOX and I actually like some of the stuff on Fox, but it is always tempered by other sources. I think for the most part, news channels are bound up in a "We got it first, even if it's not completely true" battle for nothing more than bragging rights.

[R/Tdrvr]

At least FNC gives more balanced coverage than MSNBC and CNN do. Not counting the opinion shows like O'reilly, Beck and Hannity (which I don't watch) they will have people from both sides on the news programs like Special Report with Bret Beir. Turn on MSNBC anytime during the day and its nothing but Republican/Conservitive bashing or they just bash FNC. It 50x worse on THEIR opinion shows.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Let me just tell you, if you think this is damning evidence if anything at FOXNEWS, it just shows that you have a personal problem with FOXNEWS. They ran one clip of instead of the other from when he won the straw poll. If that is the best you can do, you have never been in on the inside of major story and heard all the different ways things get reported. These are people on short deadlines. Run the Ron Paul victory tape piece was oddly too vague. Paul didn't even catch it.