What do you think of Fox News?
 

The White House seems to dislike the opinions and fear-mongering masquerading as facts coming from this network. Do you agree with the White House, or do you think Fox News is doing their job and accurately and fairly reporting the news?

Now I watch Fox News occasionally (when in hotel rooms or airports), and O'Reilly does his job well, even though I don't always agree. He presents to opposing view and why it is good. He asks the guests tough questions, and doesn't allow them to give the same answers as they have before. The problem I have is that other shows only nag and bring up the negative side of the Democratic policies. It isn't "Fair & Balanced" like they advertise. I haven't heard one positive thing about Cap & Trade (or Cap & Tax as they call it). And they are blaming the gov spending and the current administration for not creating lots of new jobs out of thin air. They argue that the country will become 'socialist' if any minor liberal policy becomes law...

Now, I do support their First amendment right to their opinions, and I understand them holding the politicians feet to the fire, but I think they take it too far sometimes and exaggerate things to get their views across to the public.

Do you watch Fox News very much? Do you think they do a good job reporting the news? Do you think they are fair and balanced?

I don't watch Fox News, accept when I occasionally watch the Daily Show or some moronic Fox News crap ends up on one of the more reliable news shows as a sort of, "hahaha... look at what the propagandists are trying to peddle today" thing.

It's a comedy/drama network that sells itself as a news network to complete idiots. Unfortunately, a few of those idiots are also completely crazy and go off and murder people.

I personally hate most "news" outlets...msnc, cnn, and fox especially. I hate that the news has become opinionated. I don't want to be told by any organization be it right winged or left what to think

I watch Fox News from time to time, not because I agree with Fox News, but because I like to see what the ignorant masses are being spoon fed (same goes for CNN and the others). It was funny how poor they looked trying to defend Bush for all these years, but now that Obama is in office it's like they are hitting home runs. It's a lot easier to legitimately criticize Obama than it was to cover for Bush.'

However, I think the real story is the administration telling the American people which news outlets they should believe. I think they are meddling in something that they should have no part in.

are people here going to suggest that we adopt something like the Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Personally, if you don't like what you're reading or watching, you're free to turn it off. What is challenging though is to find something that posits critical thinking. I believe that used to be the realm of PBS news and discussions, but I feel that it isn't so much any longer.

I watch Fox from time to time, I watch MSNBC, CNN, BBCNews... I like to compare and contrast them to see just what points of view are coming from, again all about critical thinking.

Cyn... it's the main reason that media literacy needs to be taught in school. We teach kids to read English but we don't teach them to understand the moving image or how to interpret media critically.

Hugo Chavez would agree with you. Who's interpretation? Media literacy? How about everyone line up for their ear-tags at the slaughter-house.

"we do what we're told..." Peter Gabriel.

Teaching comprehension doesn't have to include any bias, otto. I'll bet you could teach me the finer points of how to boat without me leaving the lesson voting for Reagan.

Fox News is bad for America.

Anybody ever see that '80s flick with Roddy Piper... They Live? Yeah, that. It's all bad.

I avoid FOX because they're stereotypical rich white Republiconservatz. Even when they're not white or rich.

...

By assuming the need, or by the mere premise that there is a correct way to comprehend media, we have introduced bias. We are trending down a slippery road if we attempt to silence opposing views by nudging the public into "right-think" ... bombarding them with passive-aggressive political re-education. i.e. (paraphasing) ...if a lie is presented as fact, and repeated cosistently with the appearence of authority, it becomes truth in the public eye... for example: "evil empire", WMDs (reps & dems), "transparency", "change", "create or save", "smart/green", "global warmig/climate change"... on and on. I'm sure everyone can add to the list. For as biased as MSNBC (any NBC/GE) or Public Broadcasting is, FOX has as much a right to exist. I hear more political strategy and emotional opinion aimed agaist FOX rather than facts. Nailing down the so-called lies with facts is not happening. I see a well coordinated smear program led from the office of the president in attempt to silence an opposing viewpoint. This is what we should be questioning. Who next is silenced with "right-think" or "media literacy"? This is what's dangerous if you believe in true free speech. The buy-in that FOX is dangerous sounds like the conditioning is working well among the very "useful idiots". Be careful what you wish for. Regarding the Reagan comment... I will not support any leader that puts party and ideology above the Constitution. Reagan, GHWB, and Oliver North should have been prosecuted for Iran-Contra... it's why I voted for Clinton the first time... I'm highly misunderstood. I can live wth that.

I think the net result of any successful media literacy campaign would be a widespread and almost complete refusal to waste time with commercial news organizations. Because they're all fucked.

I think in the end there is a difference between News and an opinion show, very different things if you ask me. I want my NEWS impartial, but if I'm watching O'Reilly or God forbids, the ignorant Glenn Beck, I expect some bias as they are expressing an opinion, an interpretation of the news.

I can agree that much of the "news" is largely infotainment. We are still free to change the channel. If the core principles behind media literacy promotes a strong emphasis on channel-changing proficiency, then I might agree to have it taught as an elective in special needs programs. Perhaps we would better served by practicing individual accountability and living by example.

---------- Post added at 11:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 AM ----------

A reasonable point... I'm just curious, what do you find most ignorant about Glenn Beck?

Thinking critically does not just apply to media. It applies to understanding that something an individual decides is bad for them, is in fact bad for them based on a logical premise and construct.

Individuals just need to be given the tools. Many Jews, Hindus, Protestants, and Atheists were classmates of mine in my Roman Catholic High School. We were all taught to challenge all thinking and discussion points. Some understood the importance of this, and others did not.

Oh but you will give bias to different boats, boating equipment, boating technique, and the like.

It is? How so? Isn't various opinions the mainstay of the fabric of free speech?

Providing someone tools to think critical about things, thoughts, beliefs is not biased. It's no more biased than instruction on how to digest food. Unless of course, you're indicating that anarchy and thoughtlessness is absolutely bias free.

I think you're confused if you think that media literacy doesn't involve individual accountability. As far as I understand it, media literacy is more about understanding that the context in which the media exists is an important component of making appropriate sense of the media's message.

For instance Brian Williams can compare the Obama admin's treatment of Fox News to Nixon's enemy list and it doesn't actually make any fucking sense if you take it at face value: the things the Nixon administration did actually have very little in common with the things the Obama administration is doing. If one was media literate, one could look at it in a different context: Williams is an establishment journalist looking out for other establishment journalists and so is predisposed to defend establishment journalists even at the expense of coherence (and even if he is defending an organization that has taken out whole page ads in national newspapers questioning the integrity of his news organization) . The bullshit the establishment (and alternative) media spews makes a lot more sense if one doesn't take it at face value and instead examines the motivations of the players. This is where media literacy comes in.

News broadcasting, and American political debate, was much healthier from 1949 to 1987 than it has been from 1987 to 2009. I'd be perfectly fine with a return to the fairness doctrine.

Fox News Channel (not to be confused with your local Fox affiliate's nightly news program) is infotainment at its worst. That's not to say that CNN and MSNBC aren't also infotainment, and all three of them do more harm than good in terms of news broadcasting, but Fox News Channel does tend to be the most ideological and most actively distorts the news. MSNBC is getting there though: Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are one thing (and I like them from time to time, but it's important to recognize what they are and what they are not), but now they've got Ed Schultz, Tamron Hall, David Shuster, etc. The problem with both Fox News Channel and MSNBC (again, Fox News Channel moreso, but MSNBC is not innocent) is that they too easily mix editorial with news reporting. CNN's problem, on the other hand, is that they're just shitty at what they do.

I turn on 24 hour news channels occasionally when I'm looking to kill some time and get a basic idea of what's going on for the day, but I get most of my news from public radio, the newspaper, and a few topical blogs.

What we need is a truth in media law. If the media is reporting news should should have to meet certain truth standards. This is especially true for political adds!

Just the other day Rush Limbaugh reported an Obama quote found on a website. When a caller informed rush that the website he was quoting Obama on was satire Rush said "Well I stand by the quote because Obama thinks it anyway'

John Stewert had a great piece on fox news recently:

Video: For Fox Sake! | The Daily Show | Comedy Central


Fox news (and some other media outlets) propagate lies and propaganda as truth and that is wrong.

24 hour news channels, in general, are bad for America. Fox News Channel just happens to be the worst.

---------- Post added at 10:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:34 AM ----------

You know, I could get behind that. Just like food, or any other product, if you're selling news, it needs to be news, and if you're selling opinion, it needs to be clear that it is opinion and not news. If you sell news and you propagate incorrect information, you need to correct it, and if you do so willingly, you need to pay a fine or something. I believe this is something that might be under the purview of the FCC, seeing as how they would not be limiting what can and cannot be said, merely ensuring that news and opinion are adequately labeled and separated.

The reason I say 24 hour news channels - especially as they are now constructed - are bad for America is because, like I said, they too easily bleed opinion into news. It's almost impossible these days to find reporting on TV - where most people get their news - that at least attempts to be impartial.

And of course the only way to enforce standards is to get the government involved which is extremely scary. Are they going to force us to believe the official story of things from JFK to 9/11 to the Iraq war.

Why would the government allow news that doesn't take the official stance that the government holds on issues?

Leave it up to the individual to sort out truth from fiction.
One's persons truth is another person's lies. Letting the government sort this out is a huge problem.

don't watch it

I don't. I made the Red Cross change the channel, while I sat in their waiting room to give blood. The lady looked at me like I was some sort of commie radical, and said, "Really?"

I said, "Really. If that's still on when my turn comes, I won't be here."

She changed it to CNN. Which is lousy, but not actively eating away at our nation's discourse.

sorry, that wasn't directed at you. I meant "I don't watch it"

Rush WAS fooled by the satire piece initially, but then admitted on his show that Obama never said what was attributed to him. He used that opportunity to tweak the media that had put quotes in HIS mouth (over the NFL ownership bid) and then stood by the fake quotes. Rush explained it clearly for those that missed the original point:

not actively eating away at our nations discourse? how so? sounds pretty bias to me also.

because they dont question him, that in my eyes is actively eating away at our nations discourse. since they accept what he does. for the most part.

who owns CNN? TIME WARNER.

Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets

time warner is one of the top 10 contributors to Obama. so of course they will go along with him and not question him about the consequences of his decisions or lack of them.

you may not see CNN as "actively eating away" but I do. again my opinion also.

Fox news, I tend not watch them. they "fearmonger" their news. Though it is pretty scary what the administration is doing, but to use scare tactics is not the best way to bring out the news.

a president who is a constitutional scholar, tearing it apart, that is scary in itself. (no news told me that. )

I read online and visit forums and discuss things that are nOT on the news. news wont cover everything. only enough to seem to.

you clearly don't watch CNN. Obama gets hammered by them all the time

I hadn't seen that, and that was perfect. The people shouting their opinions become the news.


And it doesn't have to be the "government's" role to police the press. You can have a consumer reports style agency that is funded by cable/sat companies that fact check and monitor accuracy and clamps down on them making stuff up.

I'm here to kick ass and chew bubblegum.............

and I'm all out of bubblegum :)



That being said, I love FOX and have CNN. But I am sure many of you haven't had the pleasurable opportunity to run into their reporters in the field.

*screams, wakes up, clutches NPR teddybear*

Ah, the sweet irony - you falsely reporting on an event to try to prove the "right" was falsely reporting on an event.

I am a "news junkie", I watch ( or listen ) to Fox, MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, CSPAN, and PBS. I don't watch the networks CBS, NBC or ABC during the week but I will catch their Sunday morning shows.

By my measure I find Fox and CNBC will most often have guests who either disagree with each other, disagree with the host, or where the host will ask tough questions of a guest. MSNBC is the most one sided with the exception of Morning Joe - but I do find Joe Scarborough often goes out of his way to make liberals feel good . Also, I find it humorous when CNBC hosts appear on MSNBC and they sit silently as people give misinformation about the economy or business practices in general - it seems like they have been told to tone it down for the liberal MSNBC audience. The prime time shows - I think CNN ( I don't watch Larry King) is probably the most balanced, but they are also the most boring.

You lucky bastard, I've always wanted to run over a reporter.

You make it sounds like a good thing. I had enough issues with the Korean news people haphazardly gallivanting around the desert with their giant cameras and safari vests. Apparently bomb suits and vehicles with robotic arms make 'em jizz in their pants. I didn't like the media presence.

DING DING DING DING DING!!!

One sentence sums up why we're steeped in a world of 24/7 infotainment instead of actual fair, unbiased reporting

Don Henley was right about the TeeVee news. Oh, here's another good jingle on the subject:

in general, i think television is a thin medium--good for footage, bad for information, good for reinforcing prejudices bad for informing debate, good at selling commodities bad at helping you think. the 24/7 infotainment streams accomplish very little of what they claim for themselves--the present little tiny worlds in superficial bite-sized chunks across an endless flashing that keeps you alert for new advertisements. what the medium is best for, and best used for, is footage like that of balloon boy or the amateur footage of the trade center attacks. what it's obviously bad for can be summed up by thinking of the fate of the trade center footage, it's loops, what it established as possible, what it was used for.

every form of fascism has used a mass media to co-ordinate opinion, provide a sense of an immediate relation between spectators and power and to institute a kind of acceptance of almost everything almost anything.

within that, my central objection to fox news is its stupidity. plus i dislike the graphics, dislike the colors. so stupid people saying stupid things framed with shitty graphics. no.
i dont watch cnn either--i dont see that network as being much less stupid. though sometimes i like tuning in for a minute to check on wolf blitzer's giant hair.

I think it is essential that we discuss television more broadly than just the news. We need to look at what people use televisions for, and what the most popular television experiences are.

Rank Program Name

1. NCIS
2. NBC SUNDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL
3. NCIS: LOS ANGELES
4. GREY'S ANATOMY
5. DANCING WITH THE STARS
6. HOUSE
7. MENTALIST, THE
8. CSI
9. CRIMINAL MINDS
10. CBS NFL NATL POST GAME
11. DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES
12. TWO AND A HALF MEN
13. CSI: MIAMI
14. GOOD WIFE, THE
15. CSI: NY
16. SUNDAY NIGHT NFL PRE-KICK
17. BIG BANG THEORY, THE
18. 60 MINUTES
19. DANCING W/STARS RESULTS
20. SURVIVOR: SAMOA

Nielsen Television ratings, season to date


Okay, what do we have? With the exception of 60 Minutes, the lists consists mainly of crime/medical/legal,etc. dramas, sports, sit-coms, and contest-based shows. There is something to be said about the average television viewer's preoccupation with the worst of crimes and medical traumas.

What do these same people look for in the news?

Anyway, what do I think about Fox News? I can't say much other than I don't particularly trust that medium or their apparent slant. I think the problem might be that people have trouble distinguishing between the news and the editorials.

oh dear, the news isn't even in the TOP 20. ............there goes my faith in the population. Then again, many people at the end of their workday just want to sit on the couch and have a beer. They have no interest nor believe they can make a difference in their own destiny. I suppose when communists or defeatists say that the world is ruled by an elite class they are right. The elite are those who pay attention and do something.

That being said I do watch Keith Oberman for a few minutes to see if he goes on an anti-GlennBeck tirade of jealousy that his ratings are higher. :)

ok.........me and xerx are gonna go do some more GTA and run over reporters.......

I suppose a key question to those of you who believe Fox is not presenting a fair and balanced picture.... Do any of these other outlets present a legitimately fair and balanced picture? In my opinion the infotainment is neither balanced nor fair anywhere. The fact that Fox is conservative to ultraconservative is a good thing in that the overwhelming majority of "reporting" on the airways is bent to the left, most substantially so.

To Fox's credit they now ask the hard questions, in light of the current administration. To their detriment they didn't ask the tough questions of the previous administration.

Journalism is not infotainment, but on the whole we see very little journalism ( by my definition is report the facts and leave the evaluation to those recieving said facts) in todays world.

Honestly, I watch little of any of this manure.

I find statements like this one very intriguing. First, I assume that people who would make this kind of remark (I hear it frequently) don't think they actually have trouble distinguishing between news and editorials. If it is clear to the people making this statement why do they think it is not clear to everyone else?

Second, I assume that people who would actually have trouble distinguishing between news and editorials, are not interested in either. So, why do those who make this kind of statement actually think the people who have a problem distinguishing between news and editorials actually have an impact on politics?

Third, I assume, given normal distribution, that proportionately there are as many on the left as there would be people on the right who have a problem distinguishing between news and editorials - basically canceling each other out, assuming a reasonable balance of editorials from both points of view. And, based on that there is no reason for concern.