[PluggyRug]

sandorski sandorski:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

The commercials with news network is becoming more of a big girls blouse network.

At least Fox says it like it is.

fixed

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

How is FOX honest about it? Their slogan is "Fair and Balanced."

Just using one of CNN slogans: "The Best Political Team on Television". According to who? Slogans are made to sell a product.

Also, if you're seemingly wanting to continue along this path. Fox News is commonly the right-wing portion of media outlets in the United States. A conservative/libertarian individual might view Fox News being the balance between the right and left leaning media organizations, and provides fair coverage in the overall scheme of American news and politics.

But then again, it's just a slogan. You might think the best part of waking up is Maxwell House instead of Folgers too.

I was rebutting Bart's/Eyebrock's claim that FOX admitted it's conservative bias. I also posted interviews from FOX's owner and managing editor to support my claim that FOX is not "honest" about its bias.

[EyeBrock]

I'm not saying Fox are honest Zip. It's just very plainly obvious what they are all about.

Like I say, I don't watch Fox, I prefer Aunty Beeb.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I was rebutting Bart's/Eyebrock's claim that FOX admitted it's conservative bias. I also posted interviews from FOX's owner and managing editor to support my claim that FOX is not "honest" about its bias.

Ahh. Even so, no media organization would be silly enough to admit its biases. MSNBC, nor CBC, nor Al-Jazeera will ever admit their various biases either.

I would argue that media companies like Fox News and MSNBC are more open with their biases, due to their picks for pundits in their prime time shows. It'd be difficult to argue that Olbermann is a card carrying Republican, or that Beck has Mao's Little Red Book on his end table.

They're certainly more open then say...the Toronto Star which used Rideau Institute experts without actually stating their qualifications during the F-35 discussions.

At least, that's what I'd argue. What Bart or Brock might argue can be totally different.

[EyeBrock]

I agree ck. I'd have been all for Byers' article if it had been front-and-centre on where he's coming from. Why would an anti-military lefty want the CF to buy the F35? Cloaking his background just showed the article for what it was.

The Rideau Institute changed their name from the Polaris Institute when people started to suss out what they were all about.
The fact that Staples et al get to be 'defence analysts' on CTV and CBC makes me really question the integrity of those news orgs.

The RI and other left-wing or right-wing think tanks deserve a voice, but let’s not disguise their motives or pretend they are some unbiased 'experts'. That goes for the Fraser Institute too.

National news organisations shouldn’t be taking sides on these things. Just report the bloody news and save us from your political bias. That would be nice.

[BartSimpson]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I'm not saying Fox are honest Zip. It's just very plainly obvious what they are all about.

Like I say, I don't watch Fox, I prefer Aunty Beeb.

I watch the BBC World News almost every night. I love their straightforward way of delivering the news and I will note that of the US news services, the one that is typically in accordance with the BBC reports is FOX.

This accordance is not because they share a bias, but because the BBC & FOX will report stories that you simply will not hear on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, PBS, &etc.

The bias on the liberal networks is often not in how they present a story, but in whether or not they present it at all.

You also see the bias in that details of the story you hear on BBC & FOX are left out on the liberal services.

In fairness, Canadians don't appreciate this phenomenon as the Canadian news services tend to report the same things even while accenting things according to the spin they want to present.

[commanderkai]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I agree ck. I'd have been all for Byers' article if it had been front-and-centre on where he's coming from. Why would an anti-military lefty want the CF to buy the F35? Cloaking his background just showed the article for what it was.

The Rideau Institute changed their name from the Polaris Institute when people started to suss out what they were all about.

Exactly, and if you're going to turn on MSNBC or Fox News during those prime time pundit slots, you should be expecting leftist or right-wing slants on issues. There is no question about the biases of said media organizations, and the pundits prove that.

If, let's say, they used said "experts" from the Rideau Institute for opinion pieces, nobody would have gave a damn. Much like I don't give a shit if Fox News, or MSNBC, or whoever else puts in their Editorial or Pundit portions of their newspapers or time slots. Why would I? I can easily change the channel, or flip to the Business/Sports/Entertainment/Comics section.

$1:

National news organisations shouldn’t be taking sides on these things. Just report the bloody news and save us from your political bias. That would be nice.

Or at least leave the taking sides portion in the sections that we all know are opinionated. Attempting to portray an obviously biased individual as an objective expert on any issue is completely wrong.

[EyeBrock]

The Beeb is pretty liberal though Bart. They pissed us all off during the Falklands by giving away shit. On other ops we kinda just took the piss out of them because of it. They got better.

But they do seem to just report the news more than the Canadian national networks. Not too an obvious bias from Aunty Beeb and that's the way I like it.

[commanderkai]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

But they do seem to just report the news more than the Canadian national networks. Not too an obvious bias from Aunty Beeb and that's the way I like it.

I'm going to blame this on being 20...but what is Aunty Beeb?

[EyeBrock]

The BBC! It's Brit talk and not at all age related!

[BartSimpson]

commanderkai commanderkai:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

But they do seem to just report the news more than the Canadian national networks. Not too an obvious bias from Aunty Beeb and that's the way I like it.

I'm going to blame this on being 20...but what is Aunty Beeb?

The BBC is euphemistically and fondly referred to as "the Beeb" on that charming little island across the pond.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Ahh. Even so, no media organization would be silly enough to admit its biases. MSNBC, nor CBC, nor Al-Jazeera will ever admit their various biases either.

I agree. Which is why I rebutted claims to the contrary.

$1:

I would argue that media companies like Fox News and MSNBC are more open with their biases, due to their picks for pundits in their prime time shows. It'd be difficult to argue that Olbermann is a card carrying Republican, or that Beck has Mao's Little Red Book on his end table.

You just finished saying that "no media organization would be silly enough to admit its biases." I agreed with that, but now you're back on to Bart's tack that FOX is somehow more honest. Au contraire--FOX maintains that its news is, in fact, "fair and balanced," as evidenced by quotes I posted earlier. They maintain that they give equal coverage to the left and the right.

The myth of the "left wing MSM" endures by right-wingers not wise enough to reflect that it is probably their own bias that makes them perceive the "MSM" as left-leaning. A lot of left-wingers actually think the media are biased to the right--Noam Chomsky, for example.

Noam Chomsky at least tried to be analytical about it, by actually measuring column-inches in large daily newspapers accounting for the abuses of various far-left and far-right South American countries ("Manufacturing Consent") during the Reagan era. I found his argument non-convincing. It didn't stand up, in my opinion, to intellectual scrutiny.

[sandorski]

commanderkai commanderkai:

sandorski sandorski:

$1:

At least Fox says it like it's Spun.

fixed

All media spins. Canadian, American, British, Australian, Russian, etc etc etc.

Think about it. Like Eyebrock showed not that long ago, media organizations put forth "experts" from the Rideau Institute about the F-35 purchase. Who they choose to have as experts, or how things are worded are more subtle forms of spin to push forth the bias of said media organization.

As you would expect, Fox News will more likely put forth right wing commentators, and usually get batshit lefties, like Howard Dean (but that's my personal opinion) to be a commentator over political issues. However, media organizations like CNN, the Toronto Star, and whoever else bring forth experts like Steven Staples who are most certainly lefties.

And, of course, the media chooses who writes their editorials or who are their pundits. Fox News uses Hannity, MSNBC uses Olbermann, and CNN uses John King. All three are, most likely (never watched King at all, but he's new to the scene) stating their opinions about political, social, and economic issues based on their ideology. And of course, media organizations hire said individuals because of their ideological bent and charisma.

Not like Fox. If you fail to see this, you Fail hard.