Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
In the example given above Fox puts emphasis on the facts that are most important.
An emotional response occurs regardless of how information is presented - I doubt I understand your point.
|
Was Fox reporting a story about an execution? The crime and the trial had already taken place. It was no longer news. The news was (ostensibly) the execution. What part of that doesn't Fox understand? Oh wait, if it bleeds, it leads, right? Let's make that little girl bleed a little more because viewers will respond emotionally to it. They like to get angry at pedophile rapist-murderers. What better way? That's not the kind of news I admire.
Quote:
|
Before I address the question, can I ask one? Do you understand why you choose certain news sources over others, even in the universe of those sources you think are objective?
|
When it comes to news, I want people to tell me shit as it happens. I don't want to hear why it's good or bad. I don't want them to play some aspects of it up if it's not as relevant as other aspects. Fox News seems to fail in that. I don't know of other news organizations that fail at that as much as Fox, though I will admit they aren't the only ones doing it. It's a matter of degree.
Quote:
You use faulty logic to come to the conclusion above.
I watch Fox News for many reasons and they change based on the issue. I also watch MSNBC for many reasons. If you really want to know what motivates me, ask, engaging sympathies is rarely one. If you got lost in the example forget about it and we can get back to broad generalities with no specifics.
Ug, Fox Good.
Ug, Ug, Fox bad.
Better?
|
Let me get this straight. You accuse me of using faulty logic and then neglect to point it out...and next you're blatantly fallacious in an attempt to strengthen your position? How do you expect me to respond to that? Should I take you seriously?