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.

huh.

so if i understand this correctly, pointing to questions about--o let's just say--fox news' documented practice of blurring the way information is framed into the political viewpoints of management (roger ailes et al, let's not forget)--is a snobby thing to do.


and second: if you can't distinguish between news infotainment and explicitly political infotainment you probably dont care anyway so it's not a problem when it happens.


and third, even if it were a problem, "the left" and the right are numerically equivalent ("given a normal distribution" which i am assuming means something) so that cancels the problem out even if there is one.


so no problem. and you're a snob for suggesting otherwise.

nice.

This is simply untrue

Ace, roachboy has raised some of the concerns I have with your response to my statement. You've admittedly made some assumptions, all of which I think are rather large leaps and aren't really telling of anything.

My post did not target anyone specific, because I have often heard the type of statement pointed out from many sources.

I don't understand the true nature of the type of comment made.

I point out why the comment confuses me, openly and honestly (I admit directly, and I hope to simply cut to the root of the issue) and I ask questions of those who hold the view that confuses me.

Now you, take my post no where and add no value. We all know how you feel about me, and we all know I don't care - so what's next?

---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:27 PM ----------

Excuse me for attempting to communicate and to understand an opposing point of view. I read or hear a comment like that, and I think what I wrote. On this occasion I though it would be good if I challenged my assumptions. It is an opportunity for you and others to help a guy like me. In my view I would rather deal with assumptions with them put directly on the table than to have them hidden and a constant hindrance to mutual understanding. But, that is just me - I understand that honesty is not easy to deal with.

You have absolutely no idea what "left" is if you think the majority of reporting in America is bent to the left, let alone substantially so. America is one of the most right-wing nations in the western world, and that is reflected in our news reporting. It's no wonder that so many people get socialism and communism - which are two very different things - confused if centre-left reporting is considered substantially left-wing. Fox News Channel seems slightly less crazy in America due to the fact that the majority of our news outlets are centre-right, so Fox being so far to the right doesn't seem quite so extreme. Elsewhere in the world, it seems just plain batshit insane - places where MSNBC might be considered centre-right. And I'm not talking about the People's Republic of China, I'm talking about evil socialist nations like Germany. ;) A little perspective goes a long way, and there is very little reporting in America that can actually be considered left-wing.

ace--you seem to imagine that you can load up questions with dubious logic and/or assumptions as if there are no problems with that and when they're pointed out to you, you get all sniffly about it.

if you want to know how it is that ideological biases can be teased out of the ways in which infotainment is framed/presented, there are any number of approaches you can take, and it only requires a bit of research to start finding out what they are.

and there are debatable point in alot of the methodologies--like discourse analysis, say, which would define a set of categories as conservative-speak (for example) and then simply count the occurances across a given sample of infotainments--with that there are some problems (the definition of conservative-speak can be one, but that's usually resolved by taking some care with the building, making arguments for the classifications or interepretations)---there's problems of representativeness (which are typically addressed in the methodology section of a study, but one can argue about that)---and sometimes there are problems of overall interpretation (on the order of well these regularities look interesting and seem to say something, but what functionally do they mean? do people modulate their actions as a function of the frequency with which certain terms are repeated?---but this typically comes down to what is being explained or understood through the study, and within that usually comes to versions of the teleological fallacy--what you're looking to explain selects the elements of analysis for you in a way)....


i say all this because there are approaches to actual research that try to isolate political meanings and/or questions and they're not without problems necessarily---but they're actual projects and not questions pulled out from beneath your hat.

and there's a TON of such research generated all the time and a simple web-search would no doubt run you into some of it.

so my "value-added" (god i hate that expression) was to point out, in a relatively nice way i might add, that your questions were so badly framed as to be kinda useless.
but there are other versions of such questions that might be interesting--but you'd have to do a little work to get to them.

I think if you applied your critique of me consistently you would have some credibility with me.

Or, I can ask directly.

What?


You are far to theoretical for me. My brain is beneath my hat (make your jokes, etc., ha, ha, ha) and what gets pulled out is what is really there. Do you assume my questions are not real? Do you believe there is some agenda behind every question or post? Why does everything have to be made so complicated with you? What are you pretending to be and why? Is the true sign of intellect to make the simple complex or the complex simple? Did that last question offend you, why?

I think you would make an interesting character study. Have you ever taken an objective look at what you do and why?

How do you know I am not doing research? Do you hold the position that because "research" exists that no further "research" is needed? Do you want to re-think what you are really suggesting here? Do you even understand the implication of what you wrote here, or is this furthering the notion (that prompted this exchange) that you or people who hold your views are more informed or intellectually more capable than the masses?

There are two way to look at badly framed questions. One is to seek a better understanding of the questions. The other is to dismiss the questions. The former adds value, the later does not. If you get "jollies" from sitting on high and taking jabs at all the "inferior" folk with their poorly framed questions, poorly framed post, poorly structured logic, etc., you must be a very happy person. You do it well, but understand that it moves nothing forward, it adds nothing, it has no value. I repeatedly suggest that you take another approach with me or ignore me. Primarily, I don't accept that I am inferior to you in the ways outlined above. I don't accept the notion that honest questions can be "poorly framed". I don't accept the notion that I will let someone take "pot shots" at me without responding. So, you are in a no win situation given your approach. So, if you do decide upon a little self-reflection, the first question is how long will you do the same thing over and over and get the same result. I know what I am doing and I know why, do you?

In the end are you saying the questions are what they are? Are not versions of the same question have a commonality of an unanswered underlying question? Again, do you even know what you suggest here? Or, are you simply like the six year-old kid, who has to have the game played by his rules or he takes his ball and goes home? "I'm not going to answer you question, unless you ask it the way I want you to!" That is real mature, isn't it?

You two should just make out and get it over with. This sexual tension is really distracting from the important issues at hand.

Pretty much sums it up: Video: For Fox Sake! | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

I usually lurk in the political forums (mostly because I find it entertaining to watch you goons talk past it each other, desperately trying to change each others minds, all while not giving a shit about anything more than yourself and your own opinions) but I had to point out that the same anti-intellectual "you're all snobs" non-argument you've used above is the same tactic Glenn Beck employs with every broadcast.

I realize that real and honest discussion is impossible here but I'm entertained and wondering what's next. Can I ship you a chalk board?

oh if the issue with fox news was only that it was conservative...

the issue is that it goes beyond being conservative, into being republican infotainment that is neither serious nor consistent.

It would be one thing to be consistently against government intervention, taxes, etc. But, as the link by smeth above shows, not too long ago it wanted more censorship, more government, etc. etc.

I wonder what network Jesus would side with...

I still don't understand the problem with my post #40. I honestly described what goes through my mind when I read or hear the type of comment I highlighted. I was not saying that I understood the nature of the comment, but it was very clear to me that I was making judgments. when I thought about the judgments it was clear to me that they were based on assumptions that I was making. My intent was not to be a "snob" but was to do something "snobs" don't do - I put my thoughts on the table including my assumptions and I asked questions seeking clarification. At this point, I have made more assumptions based on the responses - The primary one is that some here are overly defensive and believe there is some hidden agenda in my post. I say again, my post honestly reflected what I thought and there is no hidden agenda.

1-ton leg-pressing Pat Robertson and the 700 club, who else of course?!

:lol: Nice.

I think most people have touched on the major points... Here's my $0.02 into the pot:

I personally subscribe to the social constructionist approach to media. It sees the established television news organizations (TV, newspaper) as the primary conduit of symbolic knowledge (knowledge about the world we've obtained but haven't experienced - for instance, how we know there is no oxygen in outer space). Yes, it is being supplanted by the internet, but for now, newspapers and televised news still represent a large segment of the "truth pie".

Social constructionism posits that all news is biased, representing the values or beliefs of specific segments of society, regardless of what that segment is. One group presents a frame by which we can understand some social phenomenon. That frame gets picked up by a news organization and is presented alongside news as a framework by which to interpret "reality." This works just as well for any issue (drop in stock market framed as market reaction to Obama). This happens on every news network, I just used Fox for the example because this thread is about Fox.

All symbolic knowledge has bias - Even deciding what is newsworthy introduces bias. Everything else is just semantics about whose bias, how much bias, and who is it biased against.

What can we do about it? Nothing. Just put on your critical thinking cap and dive in. Or, if you value your sanity, turn off the news and just enjoy your own experienced reality, instead of fretting over some symbolic knowledge that will never impact you in any meaningful way.

ace--the problem was not a "hidden agenda"---what you were doing was pretty obvious.
and there's no defensiveness in it, despite the pleasure that must come from you in imagining such.

basically, the question you posed was in opposition to any analytic view of how infotainment works as a political question. what you argued was that an attempt to analyse presupposed a distance--which is true in theory, though in practice it's not so obvious what that means---between the analyst and the "objects" of analysis which in this case would be infotainment, how it's packaged and then one form or another of linkage between that packaging and an audience.
this distance was staged as not following from the game of trying to understand how such phenomena work socially, but rather as a snob thing.
there's nowhere to go with that.
if you're going to move from the anecdotal ("i feel this way when i see x on tv") to trying to work out patterns, you have to operate at a remove. whence statistics or any number of other devices the only point of which is to let you fashion and then talk about patterns. even a conservative media analyst would adopt the same basic procedure. even a tool like reed irvine does it.
and it's obvious to anyone who thinks about it that the distance you take, the way you proceed, what you're looking at--all of it is political.
the idea usually is to try to control for the political dispositions that shape how you frame and move through a question.
but that never really works out, despite all the blah blah blah about bias or "objectivity"
so you have to read critically. there's no way out.

the other thing you objected to was people trying to understand how conservative politics operates as if it were different from how other types of politics operates--which it is. and there is inevitably a kind of traveling to the zoo to look at the conservative creatures dimension to that. but that too is unavoidable, part of the game itself.

if it's part of the game itself and you object to it, not because the game comes with problems that require you approach the outcomes critically, but because you see the game as an extended exercise in snobbiness, then your objection really is to analyzing anything to do with conservative political discourse at all.

that was the problem, ace.

News kinda makes us dumb. Its not what we know that is important - it's what we don't know. Now, the main thing to admit here is that FOX has an agenda. They do nothing to cover that up. They are right-wing propagandists and I don't think you can deny that. Yes, they "ask questions that nobody else is asking" but that comes with a whole load of buffoonery. They sell their agenda as news and not opinion. So we have two big problems: we have a one-sided story and it is being sold under the guise of trustworthy news. This is insidious. That isn't to say that other networks aren't guilty of the same.

Back to my first point: news makes us dumb. There's a lot that we miss when we watch the news. Even if we scan the channels and get every take, we're still missing the point. We're learning the facts and not the concepts. Its myopic, but gives use the illusion of knowing more. Another insidious element.

I read what you wrote three times and some portions more than three times and I don't understand what you are trying to communicate.

From my point of view, for example, I am watching MSNBC and I hear a host and a guest go on and on about the type of people who watch Fox, listen to Rush Limbaugh, go to Tea bag events, etc., and a common theme is how "those" people don't get it, they don't understand, they don't know the difference between news (or facts) and opinion, they just blindly follow their leaders, etc., then I think about what I actually think about Fox, Rush, Beck, Hannity, etc. and there is a discontent. Sure it is anecdotal, so I ask the question - why do they assume everyone else lacks the capability they think they have?

I thinks it is a pretty simple question.

Elitism.

If you possess a modicum of a conservative idea, then you are clearly incapable of thinking for yourself, and are obviously under the influences of Limbaugh or Beck. There can be no other answer for your inability to see the "light".

Not all conservatives are Beck/limbaugh/Palin nutbags. Just because you're conservative doesn't mean you are insane. But there are those who watch FOX news that believe that everything they are told by them is %100 accurate. It's the only source of information they get on a given subject. Most(but not all) of the information put forth by FOX is completely false, and extremely biased.

Works just as well.

I'd like someone to respond to my post because I think I speak the truth.

I believe that anyone who went from "deficits dont matter" to "OMG deficits," from "the president should fight the media" to "that's censorship!," from "yay medicare part D" to "OMG entitlements" in the course of a year is not capabale of thinking for themselves. And that is not at all a matter of being conservative versus being liberal, but a matter of being blatantly partisan in the worst sense of the word or not.

I am not saying that anyone here is like that. But the fact is that fox news is like that.

---------- Post added at 10:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 AM ----------

oh, and by the way:

It must be nice to wrap your fragile political ego in the warm blanket of exaggerated (or in this case fabricated) victimhood. Don't worry, daddy Reagan/Bush(/Limbaugh?) will hold you tight and make all the evil people with slightly different political views go away.

Shhh.... shhh....

The whole point of Fox news is to highten emotion and then cater to people's fears. With that in place, they can create a very dedicated group of watchers that have an emotional connection. They can manipulate that and market to that group with ease. Emotions make us open to suggestion.

OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism

i know i know, it's all outrageous, something carried out by Elements from Within the Persecuting Elite, but if you actually watch the film, the case it makes is hard to get around.

but hey, you don't have to. why subject yourself to more abuse from the Persecuting Elitists?

That is an interesting allegation. Even on the occasions when I have watched Glenn Beck I have not found that to be true. Beck certainly puts his spin on facts/information and he puts his facts/information together in a manner to emphasize the conclusions he seemed to already had reached - but to say the information is mostly false is incorrect. There is no doubt about his bias, absolutely no doubt. But he does not pretend to have a bias free show. The real problem is when those with biases pretend to be neutral but are not.

Like O'Reily?

Just using this as an example. There are two ways to look at deficits. If a nation goes into a deficit for long-term good - I would argue that deficit may be worth while. If a nation goes into deficit for short-term gain at a harm to long-term good - I would argue the deficit is not worth while. Aside from the straw-man argument (I never heard anyone say deficits don't matter), why does it seem this subtlety is lost by those who make the kind of argument above?

---------- Post added at 08:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:22 PM ----------

Correct, OReily's claim of a "no spin" zone is b.s. I know it, you know it, I think everyone knows it. I just see the phrase as an advertising gimmick. He is not the only one who uses advertising gimmicks. But, I think the major network news shows and some newspapers like the NY Times do this with much greater pretense.

Wait, O'Reilly has all the answers.

"This is now the network of record. And the left doesn't like it."

I disagree. Fox as a corporate entity that has an objective to make money. I think that is why they are thriving at the expense of other news outlets. I think some news outlets are or were run by people with idealistic motives. I am a cynic, therefore I always follow the "money" for motivation. I would never put total trust in a news organization, who does?

---------- Post added at 08:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:31 PM ----------

News flash, O'Reily is arrogant! I am arrogant. Is that why he has problems with liberals? Is that why I have problems with liberals?

[
---------- Post added at 08:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:22 PM ----------

[/COLOR]

Correct, OReily's claim of a "no spin" zone is b.s. I know it, you know it, I think everyone knows it. I just see the phrase as an advertising gimmick. He is not the only one who uses advertising gimmicks. But, I think the major network news shows and some newspapers like the NY Times do this with much greater pretense.[/QUOTE]

Well I'm glad that you know it. But the majority of folks who watch his show take his word to be absolute truth. They then regurgitate the same rhetoric that he does and pass it off as their own thoughts and beliefs. And that is the danger that FOX news is to America. It takes advantage of the uneducated, and promotes fear in an attempt to sway people towards the right.

I looked at the clip. Fox is what it is. Do you think the NY Times is operated differently? Outside of the fact that different organizations may have different styles, i.e., one style is direct v. another style that is subtle but both effective at getting their people to follow directives, is there really a difference. I am as skeptical of Fox as I am of the NY Times are you more trusting of one over the other and why?

---------- Post added at 08:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------

I hate being redundant (actually this is false but a point for emphasis), but this goes back to my post #40. Why do you assume everyone is not in on this? I also know that using a certain shampoo is not going to make women stop dead in their tracks and want to make out with me, and other than the 13 year-old boy who tries it for the first time everyone in the universe knows it too, gee.

It seems that it is you who can't see the subtlety in the deficits argument.
Because there is no possible argument that says that deficits are good during an expansion and bad during a crisis.

Some people say that deficits are always problematic. Some people say that deficits are never problematic. Some people say that deficits are good during a recession. But there is no position that says that deficits are good during an expansion and bad during a recession.

And that is the position taken by many within fox news. Dick Cheney said, back in 2002, that ""You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter." When Oneill made those statements public, both Oreilly and Hannity defended Cheney. This was december 2002 when there was no recession. Of course, right now they've rediscovered that deficits are always bad.

---------- Post added at 08:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------

[/COLOR]

I hate being redundant (actually this is false but a point for emphasis), but this goes back to my post #40. Why do you assume everyone is not in on this? I also know that using a certain shampoo is not going to make women stop dead in their tracks and want to make out with me, and other than the 13 year-old boy who tries it for the first time everyone in the universe knows it too, gee.[/QUOTE]

If everyone knew it there would be no birthers, tea baggers or 9/12ers. The fact is FOX appeals to an uneducated mass in this country. Those people don't do any independant research for themselves. FOX isn't the only one that does this, MSNBC, CNN, all of them are infotainment, FOX just seems to be the one that is the most obvious.

I look at it based on return on investment. Is it a good use of debt for a county to build a needed school - yes. Was it a good use of debt to build the interstate highway system - yes. Was it a good use of debt to fight WWII - yes. Was it a good use of debt to bail-out GM - I would say no.

Some people, yes. Some people would think it a problem for an individual to use an 80% mortgage they can afford to buy a home, I don't.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/10...sp_rofl0ne.gif
Whew!! Yeah...let me catch my breath. Thank you. Thank you so very much for making my point for me, far better than I ever could have.

Thing is, Will, I am not what most people, in the real world, would call "conservative". I openly laugh at loud at the notions of Limbaugh and Beck. Just as I do many of the notions of yours. I'm about as middle of the road, middle America, of a moderate as you're ever gonna find. Thing is...given the overwhelmingly liberal bent of the TFP...I come off as being ultra right wing. I find it humorous. I really do.

But, you...you have to be right all...of...the...time. To the point where you fall into a trap...that I didn't even set! I made commentary. I commented on what I see. People with egos so large that they absolutely positively have to be right. Nothing else will ever do. Look, Will, you're a smart man. And, I have learned a thing or two from you. But, how many times have you offered up fallacious comments on subjects that you know absolutely nothing about? Really? I lost track. I take your word on a lot of subjects because...well... I don't know anything about it. But, I have taken you to task, in the past, for offering up "expert" opinions on subjects that you know absolutely nothing about. But I do. I know because I lived it, I did it, I've been in the trenches. You read a book, or an article, about it once. If it's on paper, and it looks good, it must be right. Right? Get over yourself. You are smart...but you're not that smart. You are, however, an elitist. ;) Bank on that.


Ace, you are 100%...correct.

Only I didn't, actually. I'm pointing out that your victimhood reflex can be triggered even by something with no substance whatsoever. Sure, it can be triggered when someone mounts a powerful attack against the pro-small government way of thinking or the idea that social conservatism is somehow unrelated to fear which is related to religion, but all I did was make a very shallow accusation of feigning victimhood... and you jumped in feet first with not just a red herring, but a backhanded personal attack.

Anyway, it's not about "being right", it's about finding the truth, trimming the fat and gristle until all that remains is what really is. Winning an internet debate rates on par with holding back a sneeze during an awkward moment on my list of personal accomplishments. What I do value is the truth, regardless of ideology, principle, perception, and pride. The truth is that most modern conservatives allow their fear to be transformed into righteous indignation via a perception of victimhood. It's written on the faces of the 9/12 Tea Partiers, and it's written in the posts of conservatives. Even many of the moderate conservatives.

Whatever, Will.:rolleyes:

A.) I claimed no "victimhood". I wasn't even talking about me. I pointed out what I see.
B.) I offered up no personal attack. Backhanded or otherwise. I pointed out what I see.
C.) Truth? Please. You and I both know better...don't we. ;)
D.) It most certainly IS about being right. I let a lot of it go because, quite frankly, I don't know my ass from a hole in the ground about half of what you yammer about. But, on the occasion that I do, I call you out and you offer up bogus slanted sources. Always have. Oh...much like Fox News. (Just to get back on track)

Look at what these liberals do to us! Look how they mischaracterize us!
Indeed. I guess I've never offered a mea culpa or changed my mind on an issue here, eh? Or maybe those are clever ploys to throw you off the elitism trail! How clever am I? Oh, there I go again!
:confused:

Fox News is just another staged play; entertainment. It just happens to entertain with facile propaganda and fear mongering. The fact that it's so often the center of attention only feeds the beast further and therein lies the problem with victimhood (to bring this all back together). Fox News is the oft disregarded but more recently bombarded beacon of the right, that last bastion of what is presented as conservatism but what's really nothing but filler, folly and foolishness. Because of this new attention from the administration, the anti-left asshats assemble for an absolute attack, empowered by the... you guessed it... victimhood. The cycle hums into action, absurdity gaining attention, then attention turning to absurdity.

All we ever had to do was ignore it and watch something better, but I'm guessing the cycle has already cycled too many times. Noam Chomsky recently warned to take the Tea Party 9/12 folks seriously because regardless of their mistakes in perception or logic, they have grievances and those grievances won't go away. The fact that they get their scripts from corporate entertainment networks and radio stations is immaterial now. The middle-class, white, baby-boomer "peasants" have pitchforks. That's what I think of Fox. It's entirely benign except that the crazies absolutely adore that it validates their fantasies about being under siege, occasionally facilitating and excusing things like shooting police officers in Pittsburgh, murdering a security guard at a holocaust museum, assassinating an abortion doctor, or opening fire in a Unitarian church.

Found this article in the Calgary Sun yesterday about Fox News, I keep forgetting that now that I'm in Alberta I'm in Harper country and no longer in my Liberal territory, I find Fox good for a chuckle
White House out-Foxed | Peter Worthington | Columnists | Comment | Calgary Sun

So are you really trying to say that the deficit under Bush was entirely ok? and the deficit under Obama is entirely not ok?

And in any case, what you think is irrelevant. This tread isn't "what do you think of aceventura3." It is about fox news, and one of the problems with fox news is its complete incoherence when dealing with the deficit under different presidents.

The only time I trust Fox News, or any news show for that matter really:

Glenn Beck at his finest

never mind... what's the point... just change the channel.

Watching Glenn Beck trying to spin his conspiracy theories connecting Obama to world socialism, communism, nazis, etc... is like playing the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon game.:)

Fox is once again caught making stuff up

Stewart mocks Hannity for inflating Bachmann rally attendance, trying to pass 9-12 rally footage off as Bachmann rally footage | Media Matters for America

It is pretty sad when a comedy show has more truth than fox news....

Or Hannity and this:
Hannity concocts smear that Obama at fault for Ft. Hood shooting | Media Matters for America

Secret - Pardon me, I thought we were discussing US media. I would agree that other countries have a far more liberal bend than most anything we have in the US. But my point was if Fox represents the Republican side as a number of folks have (probably truthfully) insinuated, the majority of the remaining outlets are bent towards the Democratic ideology.

cementor: Even then, most US media is decidedly center. MSNBC is the only one I'd say is liberal, and even they have a conservative show!

More on topic, it's things like this that make me wonder how Fox News Channel has ANY credibility left with anyone: Jon Stewart Catches Sean Hannity Falsifying Footage To Make GOP Protest Appear Bigger (VIDEO)

MSNBC is getting worse almost daily. I figure when they start accusing all other networks of being right wing they'll have completely lost any credibility. Really that's what Fox did several years ago. MSNBC seems to be following their business plan almost down to the letter.

I'm with Buffett on this-

Another reason I dislike fox news:

faux populism

Video: Gretchen Carlson Dumbs Down | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

Fox News fiddles with climate change polling - Democratic Underground

Here is another example. Although, I may give them the benefit of the doubt that it was just an innocent typing mistake (39 instead of 59). But still there is no way that poll is an accurate random sampling of the country. Maybe they only poll other Fox News viewers.

Chris Matthews has "opposition" guests pretty much every day. While Matthews is clearly left leaning, he goes toe to toe with just about everybody, even lefties from time to time. He gave Howard Dean hell the other night.

I think Matthews's show is the only one I've seen where the host was challenged to a duel.

Oh, do tell! I missed this. :)

Oh yeah, good ol' Zell "I'll be a Democrat 'til the day I die" Miller. :rolleyes:

I didn't pay very close attention to the 2004 election - I didn't think Kerry was the right guy and I KNEW Bush was the wrong guy - so I missed this on Hardball.

:lol: Very funny! Thanks!