CNN vs. Fox News Channel - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

thebeat · 07-12-2004, 08:33 PM

Quick little debate....

When you go for political news, or any news for that matter, who do you tune in to for the information?

I'm personally into the Fox News Channel, I enjoy both sides of the issues and I do come away with the "We Report - You Decide" vibe.

I think CNN is rather left, but Im sure a liberal would say Fox is far right....

Discuss..

matthew330 · 07-12-2004, 08:40 PM

not much left to discuss. Liberals hate Fox, Limbaugh, and Dr. Laura on a far too personal level....and figure any attack on Michael Moore or Larry Flint is an attack on free speech. God love 'em. rock the vote.

Wax_off · 07-12-2004, 09:02 PM

Speaking for us liberals, we see Fox news as completely lacking in journalistic integrity. They have a stated bias (regardless of their 'we report...' non-sense, go talk to Roger Ailes) which strikes us against all that we think journalism is meant to be.

nanofever · 07-12-2004, 09:13 PM

I got to PBS (The News Hour with Jim Lehere has a centrist view and is damn intelligent for a news show) for my real news, and the Daily Show and Fark.com for my fake news.

Fox News has about as much journalistic integrity as the Daily Show. At least Jon Stewart tells the audience they are watching a fake news show.

My view is that all of the American Cable TV news agencies are right of center with Fox being far right-wing. If you want to see a liberal bias, you need to go watch BBC news or read "the progressive".

brianna · 07-12-2004, 09:20 PM

npr and the bbc (props to my man jim lehere).

hammer4all · 07-12-2004, 10:00 PM

Something you all should know about Fox News...

Quote:

NEW YORK, July 9 /PRNewswire/ -- At a New York press conference this
coming Monday, four former Fox News employees will go on the record to expose
Fox's persistent Republican partisan bias, while releasing internal
memorandums from Fox News Channel showing executive level instructions to Fox
on how to bias the news.
The four Fox whistleblowers appear, along with three others, in Robert
Greenwald's new documentary "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism,"
excerpts of which will be shown at the news conference. The film is a
devastating indictment of the Fox News Channel's purposeful disinformation in
the pursuit of partisan objectives. Also at the news conference, Common Cause
and MoveOn will outline their forthcoming campaign OUTFOX, starting with
thousands of house parties to show the film taking place on Sunday, July 18th.

On Tuesday, media are invited to the official film premiere and to a panel
on media consolidation and reform hosted by The Center for American Progress,
with media authors and critics such as Arianna Huffington and Eric Alterman.

WHAT: Press Conference with FOX Whistle Blowers

WHEN: Monday, July 12, 2004, 12 NOON

WHERE: Emery Roth Salon I, Ritz-Carlton NY, 50 Central Park South, New
York, New York (59th Street between 5th & 6th Avenues)

WHO: Former Fox employees; Eric Alterman (The Center for American
Progress); Robert Greenwald (filmmaker); Chellie Pingree(Common
Cause, spokesperson for coalition)

To RSVP for the press conference (at which copies of the full film will be
available), please contact Trevor Fitzgibbon or Kawana Lloyd at 202-822-5200.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/st...2207530&EDATE=

Looks like ths sh*t has already started to hit the fan...
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr...704/13fox.html

A little article I remember published last year in the Los Angeles Times about these memos:

Quote:

A veteran producer this week alleged that Fox News executives issue a daily memorandum to staff on news coverage to bend the network's reporting into conformity with management's political views, refocusing attention on the partisan bias of America's most watched cable news operation.

The charges by Charlie Reina, 55, whose six-year tenure at Fox ended April 9, first surfaced Wednesday in a letter he posted on an influential Web site (www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45) maintained by Jim Romenesko for the Poynter Institute, an organization that promotes journalistic education and ethics.

Concerns about Fox, which styles its news coverage as "fair and balanced," begin with its owner, Australian-born Rupert Murdoch. The corporate boards and family investors who control most of the American news media generally feel obliged to maintain a wall of separation between news and editorial opinion. Murdoch, by contrast, operates in the style of the traditional Fleet Street proprietors, who dismiss such distinctions as inconvenient fictions.

And as a deeply conservative man, he is willing to put his money where his politics are: Murdoch, a naturalized U.S. citizen, subsidizes publication of the Weekly Standard, one of the country's most influential right-wing journals. According to a forthcoming book by the New Yorker's Ken Auletta, he loses as much as $40 million a year maintaining the New York Post as an outlet of conservatism in Manhattan.

As Fox's founding president, he hired Roger Ailes, a shrewd Republican political operative who earned a well-founded reputation for bare-knuckle campaigning while working for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. As one of the architects of the elder George Bush's media strategy in his campaign for president against Democratic rival Michael Dukakis, Ailes helped devise the notorious Willie Horton commercials. As he told Time magazine in August 1988, "The only question is whether we depict Willie Horton with a knife in his hand or without it."

The late Lee Atwater, another Bush aide, described Ailes as having "two speeds — attack and destroy." Before joining Fox, where he serves now as chairman, Ailes produced Rush Limbaugh's short-lived television talk show.

According to Reina's letter, "Daily life at [Fox] is all about management politics....Editorially, the FNC newsroom is under the constant control and vigilance of management. The pressure ranges from subtle to direct. First, it's a news network run by one of the most high-profile political operatives of recent times. Everyone there understands that [Fox] is, to a large extent, 'Roger's Revenge' against what he considers a liberal, pro-Democrat media establishment that has shunned him for decades. For the staffers, many of whom are too young to have come up through the ranks of objective journalism, and all of whom are nonunion, with no protections regarding what they can be made to do, there is undue motivation to please the big boss."

Fox News spokesman Rob Zimmerman told The Times that "these accusations are the rantings of a bitter, disgruntled former employee. It's unfortunate that Charlie's career ended the way it did, but we wish him well." Asked whether Reina's quotations from the memos were inaccurate or taken out of context, Zimmerman said, "All we are saying is that these are false accusations." The Times' request to speak with Ailes was denied: "Roger is not addressing this and is not available," Zimmerman said.

Reina, who told The Times he left Fox in a dispute over salary and workload — not politics — hardly comes across as a knee-jerk liberal. He is at pains, for example, to say that he believes his former employer's cable rivals — CNN and MSNBC — also air news reports riven with bias on both ends of the political spectrum. At Fox, he not only produced the network's weekly media criticism show, "News-Watch," but also a series of specials on Newt Gingrich and a talk show with conservative religious commentator Cal Thomas.

Still, Reina, whose 30-year career includes stints at the Associated Press, ABC News and CBS, said Fox's ideological problems begin with Ailes.

"Roger is such a high-profile and partisan political operative that everyone in the newsroom knows what his political feelings are and acts accordingly. I'd never worked in a newsroom like that," he said in an interview. "Never. At ABC, for example, I never knew what management or my bosses' political views were, much less felt pressure from them to make things come out a certain way. I'm talking about news bias, and I never experienced it there. At CBS or the AP, if a word got in that suggested bias — liberal or conservative — it was taken out.

"At Fox it was all about viewpoint. I'm not talking about the nighttime personalities. I'm talking about the news report. Fox executives will say their network only appears conservative because it is fair, when everyone else is liberal and biased. That's bull. Fox doesn't 'seem' conservative and Republican. It is conservative and Republican."

In his letter, Reina wrote that "the roots of [Fox's] day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo" written by John Moody, the network's vice president for news, and "distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it. The Memo was born with the Bush administration, early in 2001, and, intentionally or not, has ensured that the administration's point of view consistently comes across on [Fox]....

"For instance, from the March 20th memo: 'There is something utterly incomprehensible about [U.N. Secretary-General] Kofi Annan's remarks in which he allows that his thoughts are 'with the Iraqi people.' One could ask where those thoughts were during the 23 years Saddam Hussein was brutalizing those same Iraqis. Food for thought.' Can there be any doubt that the memo was offering not only 'food for thought,' but a direction for the FNC writers and anchors to go? Especially after describing the U.N. Secretary General's remarks as 'utterly incomprehensible'?....

"One day this past spring, just after the U.S. invaded Iraq, The Memo warned us that anti-war protesters would be 'whining' about U.S. bombs killing Iraqi civilians and suggested they could tell that to the families of American soldiers dying there. Editing copy that morning, I was not surprised when an eager young producer killed a correspondent's report on the day's fighting — simply because it included a brief shot of children in an Iraqi hospital....

"These are not isolated incidents at Fox News Channel, where virtually no one of authority in the newsroom makes a move unmeasured against management's politics, actual or perceived. At the Fair and Balanced network, everyone knows management's point of view, and, in case they're not sure how to get it on air, The Memo is there to remind them."

Av Westin, a longtime ABC news executive who is now executive director of the National Television Academy, examined Reina's letter and said: "Nothing about this surprises me. The uniform smirks and body language that are apparent in Fox's reports throughout the day reflect an operation that is quite tightly controlled. The fact that young and inexperienced producers acquiesce to that control by pulling stories is further evidence that nonjournalistic forces are at work in that newsroom.

"Roger runs the place with an iron hand and he was put in place there by Murdoch, who selected him for his politics. In that sense, what's happened at Fox is a carry-over from all Murdoch's print publications, where the publisher's politics and editorial preference is reflected in the news hole to an extent that isn't true anywhere else in American journalism."

Reina is out of television news these days, supporting himself in New York with a small woodworking business.

Looking back on his time with Fox, his greatest concern is for its young staff. "Many of them wanted to be on television but not necessarily in news. They haven't had the benefit of traditional journalistic training, so they're easily molded.

"Time after time I watched what management's politics did to the young anchors. As they near the time to get their own show, the hair gets blonder and the bias gets clearer."

Miles from 'fair and balanced'

And just to keep on topic... Where I go for daily news:
Democracy Now! - An independent radio/tv news hour.
Common Dreams News Center
Znet
CounterSpin - Weekly radio program of the media watch group FAIR.

Good Blogs:
EmpireNotes
This Modern World
Talking Points Memo
Eschaton

Zeld2.0 · 07-12-2004, 10:04 PM

This is a good reason why I laugh when anyone blames the omg "liberal media."

There's two sides to every coin, and you're not going to convince me there isn't a conservative media.

Same shit, different sides.

KMA-628 · 07-12-2004, 10:28 PM

Is neither an answer?

My vote: National Review, Cato Institute, Independence Institute and the American Spectator

And, of course, Matt Drudge (remember the problems he had with Fox?).

Seaver · 07-12-2004, 11:19 PM

I watch both actually. CNN is very left, Fox is very right. Together they land in a cloud where somewhere in there the truth lay.

pan6467 · 07-13-2004, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by matthew330
not much left to discuss. Liberals hate Fox, Limbaugh, and Dr. Laura on a far too personal level....and figure any attack on Michael Moore or Larry Flint is an attack on free speech. God love 'em. rock the vote.

Not trying to flame you Matthew, because there is truth in that. But by your statement it shows the your apathy towards the left.

What's sad is we shouldn't hate each other. The only way to progress is by taking the best of both philosophies and putting them into place.

The media just feeds the hatred, it doesn't even try to help.

highthief · 07-13-2004, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by matthew330
not much left to discuss. Liberals hate Fox, Limbaugh, and Dr. Laura on a far too personal level....and figure any attack on Michael Moore or Larry Flint is an attack on free speech. God love 'em. rock the vote.

Heh! Dr. Laura and Rush - it's easy to hate hypocrites, whether they are on the right or the left.

At any rate, I watch my local news more than anything - which is a Canadian independant station. For international stuff, I do watch CNN sometimes as they are very pervasive, but probably pick up stuff from the net more than anything.
i

seretogis · 07-13-2004, 04:16 AM

I get my news from Drudge and Cato primarily.

While Fox News does supposedly have Republican bias, keep in mind that it is a CABLE news station and that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, along with nearly every major newspaper has a liberal bias. Fox News and AM talk radio being primarily "right"-biased doesn't exactly balance the equation.

silent_jay · 07-13-2004, 05:43 AM

I go to PBS, BBC, CBC, Al-Jazzera, anything but CNN, and I don't get Fox News but I hear they had Geraldo Rivera so I wouldn't watch that, because their credibility went out the window with Geraldo.

If I want to hear someone make fun of the news then it's the Daily Show all the way.

cosmoknight · 07-13-2004, 05:55 AM

I think this really isn't a big issue. Fox leans right, CNN left, MSNBC far left. All the mainstream network news shows are all left leaning. BBC had to give classes on objectivity after reporters in Iraq accused the editors of rewriting their stories to make the war seem like a disaster. As to what I saw Fox will be running a show on some other networks which will bring the whole media to light. Fox is mostly made up from jilted reporters from other networks all of whom have a score to settle. Either way you look at it the media a a whole is going to be coming under the microscope shortly.

Most of my news comes from the web sources like Drudge etc. I find all the network coverage lazy and event driven instead of simply reporting the facts of the stories.

Kadath · 07-13-2004, 06:00 AM

What's funny is CNN was incredibly hawkish about the war, which I don't consider a particularly liberal position. I don't like full time news channels -- they have too much time to fill and so harp on non-issues in order to fill the hours, which builds a story beyond its banks.

I watch evening news, but I mix it up between ABC, NBC and CBS. If I have to have news that very minute, I'll go with CNN Headline News because it's a pretty bare bones channel and they don't really have time to throw partisan spin on things.

roachboy · 07-13-2004, 06:15 AM

i do not understand why anyone would rely on television news as a primary information source.

i am able to write this only after laughing and laughing about the characterization of msnbc as far left (huh?) and cnn as left.

they are all infotainment--factoids with pictures, no context, no depth. the commentaries are severely limited by their format--trading soundbites for argument--and the general idiocy of the commentators (fox....cnn....yuck...)

as for conservative sources--i think they are in the main ridiculous. heritage? brookings? why? because their position papers have footnotes? their function is interesting, however....they can be and should be subjected to serious criticism,,,i think their position papers are part of the reason why it is so difficult to have debates across political divisions in the states--they provide a pseudo-empirical level for the wrap-around pseudo-news environments available on talk radio, for example. they seem an important part of the process of removing conservative premises from the terrain of argument. i do not see the benefit in this for anyone.

npr has drifted since the reagan administration.

bbc world service puts npr to shame. they are a running demonstration of what radio news could be---but they are far from perfect (for example, i just tune out when they talk about northern ireland)

the net gives you very easy access to news sources from all over the world. if you are posting here, you can get access to a range of print information from a range of political viewpoints that is not that of the narrow little world of american politics.

cosmoknight · 07-13-2004, 06:28 AM

MSNBC the website carries both Slate.com and Alterman stories. Neither one is balanced with any conservative writers. Now if your trying to argue Slate.com is a non partisan/non liberal site I will be the one laughing.

Charlatan · 07-13-2004, 06:50 AM

I'm with RoachBoy on this... Why would anyone use Television news as a primary source for news coverage?

For daily news and information I read the papers: The Globe and Mail and The Toronto Star. If I need moving picutres I tune in the CBC.

For more indepth coverage I read a number of different magazines.

Superbelt · 07-13-2004, 07:04 AM

I also consider all cable news channels to be completely worthless. I see Fox as far right agenda and the rest being just sensationalistic. Not liberal, just sensationalistic. Network news are tailored to your area of course. So they go across the political spectrum. I disregard them as well.

I get my news from PBS (News Hour) and Daily Show for television. NPR in my morning and evening commute. News filters on the web like Fark. And various blogs like DailyKos, Atrios, Joshua Marshall, Volokh etc.

Paq · 07-13-2004, 10:00 AM

I watched fox up until the war bc i like their format. Plus, they pissed me off the most with the insanely conservative slant, so i would get the story there and get the real story from cnn or cnn.com or ap or any number of online places or other news networks. Frankly, I woudln't believe fox if they told me water was wet. However, they gaveme topics that i could verify on other sources. I just happen to like their format a bit better as it's more entertaining background noise..

The main reason i stopped watchign fox as much is that they became increasingly and insanely beligerant to anyone opposed to the war. Things like, "loyal opposition is one thing, but these liberal people are plain ANTI AMERICAN in opposing the war which we are now in" ...like every 10 minutes on oreilly, he's spouting treason, anti-american, how could they oppose this war, etc. It became too much for me to bear, so it's no longer on my tv.

wonderwench · 07-13-2004, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
I get my news from Drudge and Cato primarily.

While Fox News does supposedly have Republican bias, keep in mind that it is a CABLE news station and that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, along with nearly every major newspaper has a liberal bias. Fox News and AM talk radio being primarily "right"-biased doesn't exactly balance the equation.

In addition, PBS and NPR (which are puplicly funded with our taxes) have decidedly leftwing biases.

Zeld2.0 · 07-13-2004, 10:46 AM

Again I find it easy to see people dismiss everything off as a leftwing bias or rightwing bias.

Personally anyways I find it funny how 'leftwing' the mainstream media is supposed to be. If it is so 'leftwing' how is it in the mainstream when America is so split (nearly 50/50) in ideology? If anything, its people going farther to the extremities and thus making it seem unbalanced.

So in the end I cry bullshit to cries about the other sie. There are enough biases in the world among people. I find it far easire to see something slanted by being slanted and unwilling to take it.

It's far easir to dismiss a source saying something you don't want to hear than to take something in. I'd rather people read a source they don't want to hear and take some of the information and think for themselves rather than dismiss it entirely because of some notion of bias. (Hence why I prefer the newspaper now because it isn't a bunch of rambling idiots on TV).

wonderwench · 07-13-2004, 10:47 AM

Because the members of the media, much like academia, do not reflect the ideological distribution of the population at large.

cthulu23 · 07-13-2004, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wonderwench
In addition, PBS and NPR (which are puplicly funded with our taxes) have decidedly leftwing biases.

Alrthough some feel that the "tone" of NPR feels liberal, the network goes out of it's way to include conservative voices in the debates and to remain objective. These are journalists, not political hacks like Limbaugh, Hannity, etc who are only "entertainers" and are not subject to any ethical guidelines.

Dinesh Dsouza is a frequent contributor to NPR...when was the last time that you heard Howard Zinn on a Clear Channel station?

Zeld2.0 · 07-13-2004, 10:51 AM

Which is why its more important one actually reads and interprets it in their own self rather than dismiss it for not representing them. Crying about a bias means nothing to me other than an unwillingness to accept another view as valid.

It's easy to say "the media is so liberal" then not accept that view at all. It's hard to concede one is wrong or to concede there is another view that may be valid.

wonderwench · 07-13-2004, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by cthulu23
Dinesh Dsouza is a frequent contributor to NPR...when was the last time that you heard Howard Zinn on a Clear Channel station? [/B]

As I do not listen to Clear Channel stations, the answer to that is never.

Wax_off · 07-13-2004, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by cosmoknight
MSNBC the website carries both Slate.com and Alterman stories. Neither one is balanced with any conservative writers. Now if your trying to argue Slate.com is a non partisan/non liberal site I will be the one laughing.

Well, what I will argue is that slate and Alterman sites are primarily OPINION sites, not NEWS sites that are claiming to be unbiased. Most major news organizations take great pains to separate their news stories from their opinion pieces. Fox is an exception. They blend news and opinion in order to create an intentional slant.

Remember that just because some one is left of YOU doesn't make them left of the middle. News organizations need to appeal to the most number of viewer/readers/listeners. Consequently market forces tend to drive their reporting towards the middle, not to the left. Most news organizations also are dependent on advertising dollars to support them. Large advertisers are mostly corporations which politicaly tend to lean towards conservative ideals (corporate welfare, tax breaks, anti-union and others.) Therefore News organizations have an incentive to not be too liberal for fear of angering their money supply.

Gotta go.

Wax_off · 07-13-2004, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wonderwench
As I do not listen to Clear Channel stations, the answer to that is never.

You answered the word of the question, but didn't answer the meaning. That's a dodge. You can do better than that can't you?

Zeld2.0 · 07-13-2004, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wax_off
Remember that just because some one is left of YOU doesn't make them left of the middle. News organizations need to appeal to the most number of viewer/readers/listeners.

Well stated.

I mean, if they want to appeal to the larget audience possibly, and statistics wise, the largest audience is in the middle, why would they try and alienate them?

Why are they successful anyways? Because they appeal to the most people.

If you're on the far left, of course the media will be to the right. If you're on the far right, of course the media will be to the left. If you're in the middle, they'll be in a circle right around you and that makes you feel important.

roachboy · 07-13-2004, 11:08 AM

the idea that the personal politics of a journalist correlates with how that journalist does his or her job is far too simplistic.
it lets you say nothing at all about the ideological biais of a particular outlet, television or otherwise.
people do have professional identities--not all of those identities correlate with how they might think when they are hanging out with friends, drinking a beer.
you would think this would be obvious--it correlates with experience, no?
i seem to remember dropping into tfp on this topic a while ago.
it keeps coming back, and nothing moves.
ah well.

smooth · 07-13-2004, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
nearly every major newspaper has a liberal bias.

I get my news from a variety of places. The above statement, however, is false and serves to perpetuate the myth of an overarching liberal bias in the media. In fact, wonderwench picked this claim up and ran with it.

The reality of the situation, though, is that there are 5 major newspaper sources in the US: the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Christian Science Monitor.

2 of those could be said to have a liberal bias: both Times.

2 of those could be said to have a conservative bias: the Post and the WSJ.

I haven't read enough of the CSM to make a claim about their ideological leanings, but clearly the statement that nearly every major newspaper is left leaning is inaccurate.

cosmoknight · 07-13-2004, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wax_off
Most news organizations also are dependent on advertising dollars to support them. Large advertisers are mostly corporations which politicaly tend to lean towards conservative ideals (corporate welfare, tax breaks, anti-union and others.) Therefore News organizations have an incentive to not be too liberal for fear of angering their money supply.

Gotta go.

Unfortunately their slumping numbers haven't hurt their money side enough just yet. MSNBC is trying to follow Fox and reinvent their success story but it would have to replace nearly their entire newsroom. Recently added shows like Scarborough Country have helped but hardly reversed years of neglect. Here is the ratings numbers for cable news.

CABLE NEWS RACE
WED JULY 08, 2004

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 1.7 [RATING]
FOXNEWS HANNITY/COLMES 1.4
FOXNEWS GRETA 1.4
CNN LARRY KING LIVE 1.1
FOXNEWS SHEP SMITH 1.1
FOXNEWS BRIT HUME 0.6
CNN PAULA ZAHN 0.6
CNN AARON BROWN 0.6
MSNBC HARDBALL 0.5
MSNBC OLBERMANN 0.4
MSNBC NORVILLE 0.3
MSNBC SCARBOROUGH 0.3
CNBC DENNIS MILLER 0.3
CNBC MCENROE 0.3
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/...709_014401.htm

MSD · 07-13-2004, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seaver
I watch both actually. CNN is very left, Fox is very right. Together they land in a cloud where somewhere in there the truth lay.

I still can't see how anyone can call CNN liberal. I really don't see much of a difference between the big cable news stations. Everything is a bunch of different faces painted over a nearly identical script derived from the same story, and the talking heads all get that subtle, condescending tone in their voices whenever they're talking about a liberal politician, the liberal side of a debate, or whatever.

MSNBC swings back and forth from far left to far right on various issues, but the pendulum settles on the right edge of the center line when it's all said and done.

sapiens · 07-15-2004, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wax_off
News organizations need to appeal to the most number of viewer/readers/listeners.

I disagree. News organizations need to appeal to the demographic that their advertisers are looking for. (Not necessarily the most number of viewers). Some shows stay on television not because they have a large market share, but because they have a strong following in a niche market. Advertisers pay for access to that niche market. This is true for many television shows. It may be true for news organizations as well.

Quote:

Originally posted by Wax_off
Consequently market forces tend to drive their reporting towards the middle, not to the left. Most news organizations also are dependent on advertising dollars to support them. Large advertisers are mostly corporations which politicaly tend to lean towards conservative ideals (corporate welfare, tax breaks, anti-union and others.) Therefore News organizations have an incentive to not be too liberal for fear of angering their money supply.

Makes sense to me.

stevie667 · 07-15-2004, 12:42 PM

I havn't seen Fox news over here, but i do have CNN (for britain, though it seems to be more for americans living over here) and all i can say is that it's biased, lacking in any integrity and generally just poor.

Give me the BBC anyday.

cthulu23 · 07-15-2004, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sapiens
I disagree. News organizations need to appeal to the demographic that their advertisers are looking for. (Not necessarily the most number of viewers). Some shows stay on television not because they have a large market share, but because they have a strong following in a niche market. Advertisers pay for access to that niche market. This is true for many television shows. It may be true for news organizations as well.

All journalism is supposed to be immune to market forces, as money has a way of corrupting coverage. Tradtionally, the news room is a distinctly seperated from the advertising department. The fact that that firewall between editor and advertiser has been wearing thin lately speaks of a decline in journalistic integrity and is an ominous portent for the future.

wraithhibn · 07-15-2004, 04:12 PM

I was primarily Fox News, but I will occasionally watch one of the Big 3 when it comes on after the local news. CNN is good for headlines, but I dont like the rest of their programming. I grew up listening to talk radio, mainly Clear Channel's flagship station out of Cincinnati which has a very conservative bias.

After Fox started touting being the most watched news channel, I looked up the ratings. I was very suprised to see that they held a healthy lead over CNN, 55% to 30% roughly. I guess its this disparity that liberals hate because the conservatives are pulling power here.

Sparhawk · 07-15-2004, 04:27 PM

I usually miss network news for one reason or the other, but I get balanced coverage from washingtonpost online, whose news division is second to none, and they have a wide array of columnists, from Richard Cohen to Charles Krauthammer. That, combined with their editorial board, gives the Post a very centrist bent, which is just my cup of tea.

MSD · 07-15-2004, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by stevie667
I havn't seen Fox news over here,

I believe that their UK affiliate is Sky News.

seretogis · 07-15-2004, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrSelfDestruct
I still can't see how anyone can call CNN liberal. I really don't see much of a difference between the big cable news stations. Everything is a bunch of different faces painted over a nearly identical script derived from the same story, and the talking heads all get that subtle, condescending tone in their voices whenever they're talking about a liberal politician, the liberal side of a debate, or whatever.

Media bias is as much what isn't said as what is. Time paid to stories which are without merit, wording of headlines, images presented while text is read, and order of presentation all have the potential to exhibit bias. For instance, running a story on how the national crime rate is rising (though I don't believe it is) and then immediately following it with a story about the "Assault Weapons Ban" expiring and a clip from a Democrat about how necessary it is to renew it, is a clear sign of anti-gun bias as a subtle link is made between the crime rate and the AWB expiring. It isn't clearly stated but it is implied and incorrect.

Try to remember the last time that anyone who defended themselves with a gun had any recognition at all in local or national news. In Minnesota there was a 15 year old who killed his father and then was caught and held for police by two law-abiding gun owners who were legally carrying -- the last part never made it into the news. Likely station managers will say that they don't want to encourage vigilantism, but by omitting stories like this they are doing a great injustice to law-abiding gun owners and those who need to protect themselves.

Now, I doubt that there is any sort of national conspiracy to skew the nation to the left, so take that tinfoil hat off of my head.

07-12-2004, 08:33 PM	#1 (permalink)
thebeat Insane Location: Deep South	CNN vs. Fox News Channel Quick little debate.... When you go for political news, or any news for that matter, who do you tune in to for the information? I'm personally into the Fox News Channel, I enjoy both sides of the issues and I do come away with the "We Report - You Decide" vibe. I think CNN is rather left, but Im sure a liberal would say Fox is far right.... Discuss..

07-12-2004, 09:13 PM	#4 (permalink)
nanofever Huzzah for Welcome Week, Much beer shall I imbibe. Location: UCSB	I got to PBS (The News Hour with Jim Lehere has a centrist view and is damn intelligent for a news show) for my real news, and the Daily Show and Fark.com for my fake news. Fox News has about as much journalistic integrity as the Daily Show. At least Jon Stewart tells the audience they are watching a fake news show. My view is that all of the American Cable TV news agencies are right of center with Fox being far right-wing. If you want to see a liberal bias, you need to go watch BBC news or read "the progressive". __________________ I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect. Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum: "Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

07-12-2004, 10:28 PM	#8 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	Is neither an answer? My vote: National Review, Cato Institute, Independence Institute and the American Spectator And, of course, Matt Drudge (remember the problems he had with Fox?). __________________ Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

07-13-2004, 04:16 AM	#12 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	I get my news from Drudge and Cato primarily. While Fox News does supposedly have Republican bias, keep in mind that it is a CABLE news station and that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, along with nearly every major newspaper has a liberal bias. Fox News and AM talk radio being primarily "right"-biased doesn't exactly balance the equation. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

07-13-2004, 05:43 AM	#13 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	I go to PBS, BBC, CBC, Al-Jazzera, anything but CNN, and I don't get Fox News but I hear they had Geraldo Rivera so I wouldn't watch that, because their credibility went out the window with Geraldo. If I want to hear someone make fun of the news then it's the Daily Show all the way. __________________ Absence makes the heart grow fonder

07-12-2004, 08:40 PM	#2 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	not much left to discuss. Liberals hate Fox, Limbaugh, and Dr. Laura on a far too personal level....and figure any attack on Michael Moore or Larry Flint is an attack on free speech. God love 'em. rock the vote.

07-12-2004, 09:02 PM	#3 (permalink)
Wax_off No Avatar, No Sig.	Speaking for us liberals, we see Fox news as completely lacking in journalistic integrity. They have a stated bias (regardless of their 'we report...' non-sense, go talk to Roger Ailes) which strikes us against all that we think journalism is meant to be.

07-12-2004, 09:20 PM	#5 (permalink)
brianna Addict Location: nyc	npr and the bbc (props to my man jim lehere).

07-12-2004, 10:04 PM	#7 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	This is a good reason why I laugh when anyone blames the omg "liberal media." There's two sides to every coin, and you're not going to convince me there isn't a conservative media. Same shit, different sides.

07-12-2004, 11:19 PM	#9 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	I watch both actually. CNN is very left, Fox is very right. Together they land in a cloud where somewhere in there the truth lay.

07-13-2004, 05:55 AM	#14 (permalink)
cosmoknight Tilted	I think this really isn't a big issue. Fox leans right, CNN left, MSNBC far left. All the mainstream network news shows are all left leaning. BBC had to give classes on objectivity after reporters in Iraq accused the editors of rewriting their stories to make the war seem like a disaster. As to what I saw Fox will be running a show on some other networks which will bring the whole media to light. Fox is mostly made up from jilted reporters from other networks all of whom have a score to settle. Either way you look at it the media a a whole is going to be coming under the microscope shortly. Most of my news comes from the web sources like Drudge etc. I find all the network coverage lazy and event driven instead of simply reporting the facts of the stories.

07-13-2004, 06:00 AM	#15 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	What's funny is CNN was incredibly hawkish about the war, which I don't consider a particularly liberal position. I don't like full time news channels -- they have too much time to fill and so harp on non-issues in order to fill the hours, which builds a story beyond its banks. I watch evening news, but I mix it up between ABC, NBC and CBS. If I have to have news that very minute, I'll go with CNN Headline News because it's a pretty bare bones channel and they don't really have time to throw partisan spin on things. __________________ it's quiet in here

07-13-2004, 06:15 AM	#16 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i do not understand why anyone would rely on television news as a primary information source. i am able to write this only after laughing and laughing about the characterization of msnbc as far left (huh?) and cnn as left. they are all infotainment--factoids with pictures, no context, no depth. the commentaries are severely limited by their format--trading soundbites for argument--and the general idiocy of the commentators (fox....cnn....yuck...) as for conservative sources--i think they are in the main ridiculous. heritage? brookings? why? because their position papers have footnotes? their function is interesting, however....they can be and should be subjected to serious criticism,,,i think their position papers are part of the reason why it is so difficult to have debates across political divisions in the states--they provide a pseudo-empirical level for the wrap-around pseudo-news environments available on talk radio, for example. they seem an important part of the process of removing conservative premises from the terrain of argument. i do not see the benefit in this for anyone. npr has drifted since the reagan administration. bbc world service puts npr to shame. they are a running demonstration of what radio news could be---but they are far from perfect (for example, i just tune out when they talk about northern ireland) the net gives you very easy access to news sources from all over the world. if you are posting here, you can get access to a range of print information from a range of political viewpoints that is not that of the narrow little world of american politics. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-13-2004, 06:28 AM	#17 (permalink)
cosmoknight Tilted	MSNBC the website carries both Slate.com and Alterman stories. Neither one is balanced with any conservative writers. Now if your trying to argue Slate.com is a non partisan/non liberal site I will be the one laughing.

07-13-2004, 06:50 AM	#18 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I'm with RoachBoy on this... Why would anyone use Television news as a primary source for news coverage? For daily news and information I read the papers: The Globe and Mail and The Toronto Star. If I need moving picutres I tune in the CBC. For more indepth coverage I read a number of different magazines. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

07-13-2004, 07:04 AM	#19 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I also consider all cable news channels to be completely worthless. I see Fox as far right agenda and the rest being just sensationalistic. Not liberal, just sensationalistic. Network news are tailored to your area of course. So they go across the political spectrum. I disregard them as well. I get my news from PBS (News Hour) and Daily Show for television. NPR in my morning and evening commute. News filters on the web like Fark. And various blogs like DailyKos, Atrios, Joshua Marshall, Volokh etc.

07-13-2004, 10:00 AM	#20 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	I watched fox up until the war bc i like their format. Plus, they pissed me off the most with the insanely conservative slant, so i would get the story there and get the real story from cnn or cnn.com or ap or any number of online places or other news networks. Frankly, I woudln't believe fox if they told me water was wet. However, they gaveme topics that i could verify on other sources. I just happen to like their format a bit better as it's more entertaining background noise.. The main reason i stopped watchign fox as much is that they became increasingly and insanely beligerant to anyone opposed to the war. Things like, "loyal opposition is one thing, but these liberal people are plain ANTI AMERICAN in opposing the war which we are now in" ...like every 10 minutes on oreilly, he's spouting treason, anti-american, how could they oppose this war, etc. It became too much for me to bear, so it's no longer on my tv. __________________ Live. Chris Last edited by Paq; 07-13-2004 at 10:02 AM..

07-13-2004, 10:46 AM	#22 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	Again I find it easy to see people dismiss everything off as a leftwing bias or rightwing bias. Personally anyways I find it funny how 'leftwing' the mainstream media is supposed to be. If it is so 'leftwing' how is it in the mainstream when America is so split (nearly 50/50) in ideology? If anything, its people going farther to the extremities and thus making it seem unbalanced. So in the end I cry bullshit to cries about the other sie. There are enough biases in the world among people. I find it far easire to see something slanted by being slanted and unwilling to take it. It's far easir to dismiss a source saying something you don't want to hear than to take something in. I'd rather people read a source they don't want to hear and take some of the information and think for themselves rather than dismiss it entirely because of some notion of bias. (Hence why I prefer the newspaper now because it isn't a bunch of rambling idiots on TV).

07-13-2004, 10:47 AM	#23 (permalink)
wonderwench Banned	Because the members of the media, much like academia, do not reflect the ideological distribution of the population at large.

07-13-2004, 10:51 AM	#25 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	Which is why its more important one actually reads and interprets it in their own self rather than dismiss it for not representing them. Crying about a bias means nothing to me other than an unwillingness to accept another view as valid. It's easy to say "the media is so liberal" then not accept that view at all. It's hard to concede one is wrong or to concede there is another view that may be valid.

07-13-2004, 11:08 AM	#30 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the idea that the personal politics of a journalist correlates with how that journalist does his or her job is far too simplistic. it lets you say nothing at all about the ideological biais of a particular outlet, television or otherwise. people do have professional identities--not all of those identities correlate with how they might think when they are hanging out with friends, drinking a beer. you would think this would be obvious--it correlates with experience, no? i seem to remember dropping into tfp on this topic a while ago. it keeps coming back, and nothing moves. ah well. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-15-2004, 12:42 PM	#35 (permalink)
stevie667 Too Awesome for Aardvarks Location: Angloland	I havn't seen Fox news over here, but i do have CNN (for britain, though it seems to be more for americans living over here) and all i can say is that it's biased, lacking in any integrity and generally just poor. Give me the BBC anyday.

07-15-2004, 04:12 PM	#37 (permalink)
wraithhibn Dopefish Location: the 'Ville	I was primarily Fox News, but I will occasionally watch one of the Big 3 when it comes on after the local news. CNN is good for headlines, but I dont like the rest of their programming. I grew up listening to talk radio, mainly Clear Channel's flagship station out of Cincinnati which has a very conservative bias. After Fox started touting being the most watched news channel, I looked up the ratings. I was very suprised to see that they held a healthy lead over CNN, 55% to 30% roughly. I guess its this disparity that liberals hate because the conservatives are pulling power here. __________________ If you won't dress like the Victoria Secret girls, don't expect us to act like soap opera guys.

07-15-2004, 04:27 PM	#38 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	I usually miss network news for one reason or the other, but I get balanced coverage from washingtonpost online, whose news division is second to none, and they have a wide array of columnists, from Richard Cohen to Charles Krauthammer. That, combined with their editorial board, gives the Post a very centrist bent, which is just my cup of tea. __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."