This is what MEDIAMATTERS does.

[FIND]

No, you projected again.

No, sorry, I don't watch TV anymore, and I don't think she is that hot.... Plus her voice is annoying.

To answer Foss's statement in a more serious manner:

I used to watch Fox News, I found it balanced out CNN and MSNBC quite well. But over the years, I stopped watching cable news as much as they got more and more slanted, and began relying heavier on sensationalism than substance. Last year, I finally got tired of paying my cable bill since my kids only got a few hours of television a week, and I pretty much stopped watching it all together, so I shut off my cable. So no, I don't watch Fox news.

LIBERAL TROLL WARNING:​

The above post was made by a LvC member that has been branded a “LIBERAL TROLL” by the “Established Members” of the LvC Politics & Current Events Forum (P&CEF). The content of the above post is exclusively that of the “LIBERAL TROLL” and in no way reflects the opinions of the “Established Members” and in fact, is subject to the following actions by the “Established Members”: Ridicule, dismissal, ad hominem personal attacks, misconstrue, misdirection, projection, rejection, censorship, fact-free criticism, and flat-out talking bad about his mother.

Other LvC P&CEF members are free to, and are in fact encourage to establishing “street-cred” by joining the “Established Members” in their participation of the above actions. Your participation in piling on this and all other “LIBERAL TROLLS” will be rewarded with 24/7 online moral support by the “Established Members” and like-minded LvC P&CEF moderators. If you don’t agree with something that this, or any other “LIBERAL TROLL” posts regardless of factual basis used, merely notify one of the LvC P&CEF moderators and they will promptly edit or delete offending post as appropriate. We, the “Established Members” of the LvC P&CEF strive for political unity on this forum and will stop at nothing to purge all “LIBERAL TROLLs” to achieve that goal.

 

[foxpaws]

Are you equating Roger Ailes to George Sorros?
Explain to me how they are the same.

Ailes has been in the media his entire career and was associated with Republicans as a media consultant through 70s and 80s.

George Sorros.....
from former radical leftist David Horowitz's website:
*Long list....*

The YWCA - huh, didn't know that one...

Ah, and you know, Horowitz's current affiliations might be more appropriate in this conversation than his past ones....

Sorros supports a lot of radical stuff - it is his money - let him do with it what he wants. And I have no problem using that as a barometer of 'value' when it comes to those sources. They will be skewed left - I have no doubt of that. They are there - if you want to look at them, and get ideas, sort of go 'wow, really' and use it as a starting point where you then look deeper into a story - that is fine, that is how those sort of things like Media Matters should be used. A starting point, not an ending point.

However, when a media consultant for the right, who continues to have strong ties to the right, is the head of a news organization, then some warning bells should go off as well Cal. If James Carville was running ABC News, I think warning bells would be ringing out loud and clear across the right political spectrum. And rightly so. I would be questioning it. I might like watching it better than Fox News, but I certainly wouldn't be holding it up as a beckon of truth and fairness.

Cal - I am more than willing to say that Media Matters is biased, and certainly almost everything Sorros has his money in will be left leaning. However, here is where I have a problem. Why can't you see the same thing happening on the right? Ailes is skewing Fox News.... because of their practices, especially when it come to creating news, you can't hold it up as some sort of fair and balanced source.

My claim that Fox News is now a creator of news, and not just a reporter of news or opinion source is valid. It is also why you have to put into question their reasons for how they report the news. If you have a stake in the story, your reporting of the story could be compromised.

I noticed you didn't answer that part... just glommed onto the Sorros thing.

 

[fossten]

If James Carville was running ABC News, I think warning bells would be ringing out loud and clear across the right political spectrum. And rightly so. I would be questioning it. I might like watching it better than Fox News, but I certainly wouldn't be holding it up as a beckon of truth and fairness.

He might as well have been during the Ken Starr investigation - errrrrr - character assassination. He was all I saw on the main news networks - and he was given a platform to slice and dice Starr while defending Slick Bubba as the Angel of Virtue.

Remember the NBC News Obamacare infomercial from inside the White House last year? Can you say 'in the tank?'

 

[fossten]

To answer Foss's statement in a more serious manner:

I used to watch Fox News, I found it balanced out CNN and MSNBC quite well. But over the years, I stopped watching cable news as much as they got more and more slanted, and began relying heavier on sensationalism than substance. Last year, I finally got tired of paying my cable bill since my kids only got a few hours of television a week, and I pretty much stopped watching it all together, so I shut off my cable. So no, I don't watch Fox news.

So, what did you see back then that gave you the impression that it was fake? Are you talking about the editorial shows like Hannity or Beck, or are you talking about the news broadcasts?

 

[Calabrio]

No, sorry, I don't watch TV anymore, and I don't think she is that hot....

Say no more... you're more of a Bill Hemmer fan.
Gotcha.

 

[fossten]

Say no more... you're more of a Bill Hemmer fan.
Gotcha.

Ouch man...

That's gonna leave a mark. :bowrofl:

 

[foxpaws]

He might as well have been during the Ken Starr investigation - errrrrr - character assassination. He was all I saw on the main news networks - and he was given a platform to slice and dice Starr while defending Slick Bubba as the Angel of Virtue.

Remember the NBC News Obamacare infomercial from inside the White House last year? Can you say 'in the tank?'

So, why can't you say 'in the tank' when you see how Fox reports the news. Not entirely, they do a good job with lots of stuff - but politically - I think you need to say they do the same 'infomercials' for the right that NBC did for healthcare on the left.

 

[Calabrio]

So, why can't you say 'in the tank' when you see how Fox reports the news. Not entirely, they do a good job with lots of stuff - but politically - I think you need to say they do the same 'infomercials' for the right that NBC did for healthcare on the left.

No. This is simply untrue and it can't be left.
Fox News is not just the conservative mirror image of MSNBC. I can't let that stand unchallenged. You'd love it if Fox News were considered as irrelevant as MSNBC is.

The news division of Fox News is the most balanced and fair in the industry. We've had this discussion before. I will again challenge you to watch the 6PM news on Fox News and tell me how it's biased.

Perhaps you've forgotten, but last time we did this dance, you eventually, reluctantly DID admit that the news broadcast WAS extremely fair and balanced, you then shifted the focus and tried to argue that the trailers for Sean Hannity's TV during the news program made it feel biased.

But, I'll ask, when did Chris Wallace, son of Mike Wallace, suddenly become a partisan or ideological Republican? And what is Bret Baier political disposition? I don't know, maybe you do, but I can't tell from his reporting.

 

[foxpaws]

No. This is simply untrue and it can't be left.
Fox News is not just the conservative mirror image of MSNBC. I can't let that stand unchallenged. You'd love it if Fox News were considered as irrelevant as MSNBC is.

The news division of Fox News is the most balanced and fair in the industry. We've had this discussion before. I will again challenge you to watch the 6PM news on Fox News and tell me how it's biased.

Perhaps you've forgotten, but last time we did this dance, you eventually, reluctantly DID admit that the news broadcast WAS extremely fair and balanced, you then shifted the focus and tried to argue that the trailers for Sean Hannity's TV during the news program made it feel biased.

But, I'll ask, when did Chris Wallace, son of Mike Wallace, suddenly become a partisan or ideological Republican? And what is Bret Baier political disposition? I don't know, maybe you do, but I can't tell from his reporting.

Ah, did you read the stuff I wrote about Fox News having a stake in the game because of their practice of producing and running commercials for tea party rallies for free... earlier Cal?

They now create the news, not just report or opine on it.

 

[shagdrum]

So, why can't you say 'in the tank' when you see how Fox reports the news. Not entirely, they do a good job with lots of stuff - but politically - I think you need to say they do the same 'infomercials' for the right that NBC did for healthcare on the left.

That is actually empirically disprovable.

 

[foxpaws]

That is actually empirically disprovable.

Ah, shag - you too - if you make free commercials for a political party, run those commercials for free, you have a stake in the game. It brings into question the 'why' they are running a story, or the viewpoint they are taking on a story... they have a monetary commitment.

Oh, and as Cal listed the things that Sorros funds - you might want to check into what the people who fund CMPA also fund - it is all right wing... sorry... you don't take Media Matters (which I don't either) I don't take CMPA for the same reason - follow the money honey...

Also, Lichter, the president, used to work for Fox... sort of like the Fox watching the Fox den - right?

 

[FIND]

Youre gay cause you dont think like us

there you go, cleaned up your post for you so that no one misunderstands what you are trying to say.

 

[shagdrum]

it is all right wing... sorry... you don't take Media Matters (which I don't either) I don't take CMPA for the same reason - follow the money honey...

Actually, I don't take Media Matters seriously because they have demonstrable history of distortion and thus, no credibility. The same is not true for CMPA.

It has nothing to do with who is funding them. At best, funding can be an indicator of the direction a bias might come from, but it is not, in and of itself, proof of bias. That falls to the methodologies in the studies, the logic in the arguments, etc. In short, their actions prove or disprove a bias and lack of objectivity, not their funding. In fact, to argue that funding is proof of bias is to make an ad hominem circumstantial argument.

 

[FIND]

So, what did you see back then that gave you the impression that it was fake? Are you talking about the editorial shows like Hannity or Beck, or are you talking about the news broadcasts?

Because it is not real news. It is a sensationalist broadcast that is more about ratings and presenting a slanted view of the news. Only problem is it doesn't make as much sense if you call MSNBC Faux News..... see, no one would understand that reference. But you say Faux News, and you knew right away that I was talking about Fox News.

 

[fossten]

Because it is not real news. It is a sensationalist broadcast that is more about ratings and presenting a slanted view of the news. Only problem is it doesn't make as much sense if you call MSNBC Faux News..... see, no one would understand that reference. But you say Faux News, and you knew right away that I was talking about Fox News.

I knew it because all the leftard wackjobs who populate DKos and Democrat Underground routinely use that term.

 

[fossten]

Ah, shag - you too - if you make free commercials for a political party, run those commercials for free, you have a stake in the game. It brings into question the 'why' they are running a story, or the viewpoint they are taking on a story... they have a monetary commitment.

Oh, and as Cal listed the things that Sorros funds - you might want to check into what the people who fund CMPA also fund - it is all right wing... sorry... you don't take Media Matters (which I don't either) I don't take CMPA for the same reason - follow the money honey...

Also, Lichter, the president, used to work for Fox... sort of like the Fox watching the Fox den - right?

Instead of hinting at supposed evidence, why don't you follow Shag's lead and actually post some links...

 

[shagdrum]

Because it is not real news. It is a sensationalist broadcast that is more about ratings and presenting a slanted view of the news.

If that is your standard then you have to disregard any and every news outlet. Self-promotion is part of the game and sensationalism is the main means of self promotion.

Also, sensationalism alone does not mean that it is "fake news" as you ignorantly claim. After a certain degree, sensationalism can lead to distortion. However, there is a difference between the amount of sensationalism and the degree of sensationalism.

Can you give logical a reason why Fox News should be regarded as less credible then any other news outlet?

 

[foxpaws]

Actually, I don't take Media Matters seriously because they have demonstrable history of distortion and thus, no credibility. The same is not true for CMPA.

It has nothing to do with who is funding them. At best, funding can be an indicator of the direction a bias might come from, but it is not, in and of itself, proof of bias. That falls to the methodologies in the studies, the logic in the arguments, etc. In short, their actions prove or disprove a bias and lack of objectivity, not their funding. In fact, to argue that funding is proof of bias is to make an ad hominem circumstantial argument.

However - the guy who runs it is also a buddy of Murdock - come on Shag - I give you Media Matters - it is left... By trying to hold to CMPA, you are holding on to proven right wing bias... Scaife donates money to them, Olin does, they are right - they are beholding to their contributors and Lichter has Fox News written all over his resume.

Those two in combination are a pretty strong argument against using CMPA, just as Sorros is a good reason not to use Media Matters.

And yes - even the Columbia Journalism Review has come down on CMPA and its methods...

Here is an excellent paper that shows how Lichter's methods are very questionable.

And here is an article that exposes what/who/and how much is behind CMPA...

Now, foss - I steered clear of MM, Fair.org, American Progress, etc. when finding criticism of CMPA, just as I feel that CMPA shouldn't be used when we are discussing Fox News and their bias.

Plus, none of you have argued that now Fox has a stake in the game - that is a game changer... they have a monetary stake in this whole thing. Do they report on a small tea party rally in Hoboken, or do they report on a much larger anti-war rally in Chicago - they chose the tea party rally, because they have a stake in making sure that the Tea Party gets lots of press, they produced and ran commercial for the rallies... They are making news, not just reporting news.

 

[Calabrio]

Plus, none of you have argued that now Fox has a stake in the game - that is a game changer... they have a monetary stake in this whole thing. Do they report on a small tea party rally in Hoboken, or do they report on a much larger anti-war rally in Chicago - they chose the tea party rally, because they have a stake in making sure that the Tea Party gets lots of press, they produced and ran commercial for the rallies... They are making news, not just reporting news.

Is it news when a bunch of organized, professional radicals get together in an urban area like Chicago and have yet another America-hating rally where they burn flags?

Is it news when regular people, people who have no pattern of protesting or organizing, leave their homes and interrupt their work to gather together in a genuinely organic, grassroots movement?

I guess that answer is subjective.
Maybe they both are.
Maybe neither are.

But when the professional flash mobs and protesters show up, are they really representing all that many people?
And when the tea party events take place, are they representing the sentiment of a significant and growing population within the country?

But it should also be noted, Fox News doesn't cover every TeaParty style protest. To the contrary, they've only covered a handful of the events, much to the disappointment of many of the organizers who are emerging.

If Fox really were the ratings grabbing, political machine, they WOULD have cameras at those anti-war rallies. It would shock and horrify middle-America to see what takes place at those large events, it would be an extremely powerful image that would effectively associate the Democrat party with the radicals that have taken over the party.

EDIT THAT WASN'T POSTED UNTIL AFTER FOXPAWS HAD RESPONDED:
But on the subject of bias-
merely covering the event can be explained as a judgment call.
But the manner and tone of the coverage are what really differentiates the networks.

When a network like MSNBC attends a tea party event, they focus on the lunatic with ugly sign and invest their "journalistic integrity" in portraying the people attending in a negative light. There coverage of the event isn't done objectively. And often times, they engage in dishonest editing.

Just off the top of my head, remember how MSNBC was trying to present the teaparty protesters are racist and gun toting, they went on to loop a video of a man's back with a rifle hanging off it. However, due to their lack of journalistic integrity, they looped the video so that it never reached the part where the video panned up to show that it was actually a black man standing there with the weapon.

 

[foxpaws]

Is it news when a bunch of organized, professional radicals get together in an urban area like Chicago and have yet another America-hating rally where they burn flags?

Is it news when regular people, people who have no pattern of protesting or organizing, leave their homes and interrupt their work to gather together in a genuinely organic, grassroots movement?

I guess that answer is subjective.
Maybe they both are.
Maybe neither are.

But it should also be noted, Fox News doesn't cover every TeaParty style protest. To the contrary, they've only covered a handful of the events, much to the disappointment of many of the organizers who are emerging.

If Fox really were the ratings grabbing, political machine, they WOULD have cameras at those anti-war rallies. It would shock and horrify middle-America to see what takes place at those large events, it would be an extremely powerful image that would effectively associate the Democrat party with the radicals that have taken over the party.

Would it cal - what was the last anti-war rally you attended?

Nonetheless - you still haven't answered the real basic question that needs to be addressed when viewing the bias/non bias relationship Fox has with the news. Once they became a stake holder - they have to be viewed differently than just a reporting/opinion source. They now make the news, and how they cover the news they make will reflect either positively or negatively on their bottom line. They have become an advocate, and not merely a news reporting source when it come to political events.

It makes more sense for their profit numbers for them to push certain news stories. So, they do. They are a business first Cal.

 

[Calabrio]

Would it cal - what was the last anti-war rally you attended?

In another thread I just posted a video that contrasted the two competing protests on the day Obamacare was passed and the way the mainstream media presented both of them.

Nonetheless - you still haven't answered the real basic question that needs to be addressed when viewing the bias/non bias relationship Fox has with the news.

I simply don't agree with the premise of the challenge you presented.

 

[fossten]

Hey fox, remember this? "Making the news," indeed.

"NASCAR: Dateline NBC's Plan 'Outrageous,'" from AP:

CHARLOTTE, N.C. - NASCAR said it was "outrageous" that "Dateline NBC" targeted one of its race tracks last weekend for a possible segment on anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States.

NASCAR said NBC confirmed it was sending Muslim-looking men to a race, along with a camera crew to film fans' reactions. The NBC crew was "apparently on site in Martinsville, Va., walked around and no one bothered them," NASCAR spokesman Ramsey Poston said Wednesday.

"It is outrageous that a news organization of NBC's stature would stoop to the level of going out to create news instead of reporting news," Poston said.

"Any legitimate journalist in America should be embarrassed by this stunt. The obvious intent by NBC was to evoke reaction, and we are confident our fans won't take the bait," he said....
​

 

[shagdrum]

However - the guy who runs it is also a buddy of Murdock - come on Shag

Again, this has nothing to do with their credibility except through fallacious ad hominem circumstantial logic.

I give you Media Matters - it is left... By trying to hold to CMPA, you are holding on to proven right wing bias...

Yet you haven't proven any such thing. The best you can do is make fallacious arguments.

The articles you cite ultimately make the same mistake of hinging on fallacious insinuations and distortions instead of legitimate critics of methodology.

In fact, considering that some of those articles fallacious argument is that media bias is too subjective to be measured, you have talking out of both sides of your mouth when you claim Fox News is biased. If those articles show that Fox News cannot be shown to be unbiased, they also discredit your claims about Fox.

That is the problem when you simply look for the most expedient argument to make; you inadvertently show yourself to be discussing things in bad faith.

Oh, and if you want to bring up outfoxed; it has no credibility to speak of.

 

[foxpaws]

In another thread I just posted a video that contrasted the two competing protests on the day Obamacare was passed and the way the mainstream media presented both of them.

so you haven't attended any anti-war rallies...

I simply don't agree with the premise of the challenge you presented.

What - that having a monetary interest in the game might alter the way you report the game... duh... it doesn't get any more simple that that Cal.

 

[foxpaws]

Again, this has nothing to do with their credibility except through fallacious ad hominem circumstantial logic.

Come on shag - if your friend headed a news organization, one you worked at for years, and the money from the current organization that you head is funded by money that is also from the friends of that same news organization head, I can't question that it might be biased - especially after posting articles that show how the 'watchdog' collects and presents data are very questionable as well.

You gotta be kidding - I give up - there is absolutely nowhere I can go. I give you Media Matters on the same exact reasoning, I know they aren't to be trusted, I know if I see something there I need to find other places, go to original source - or I will probably be bitten in the butt - because that is the way they work. The exact same way, with the exact same reasons you shouldn't use CMPA - However, you need to hold on to your source, like a wet blanket, because you don't have anything else. Gak shag - that is just ridiculous. Ownership and management are friends with the owner and manager (Scaife and Ailes go way back) of the thing they are investigating? Every court of law would ask them to step down, because their results would always be in question.

Now - Fox News has a stake in the political game - they have monetarily backed a political party, with commercials they have produced and run. They cannot be trusted to then report on that same political party, because there is a chance that they will be reporting in a way that will create return on investment.

It really doesn't get any easier than that - if you invest in something, you are going to tell the world how wonderful it is. So, therefore, the investors aren't the best place to get unbiased opinion on the product.