Take back any benefit of the doubt you ever gave Fox News

[Perpetual Change]

Every once in awhile, someone asserts that the left's cable networks are just as bad. This argument literally gets blown to pieces every time. Fox has such a long, well-recorded history of being unfair and evil.

[Scheavo]

Oh but I also forgot to add the question of: "What part of that headline is incorrect?"  not seeing it.

The part where it included extraneous information for the sole purpose of adding political bias beyond what can be expected of a professional in the field.

Yeah beacuse the left leaning media outlets NEVER do that do they? LMAO.

But just for shits-n-giggles lets break it down... "Impeached President Says Global Warming Deniers Embarrass America"

Impeached President? Check
Impeached Presidenet says? Check
Impeached President Says Global Warming Deniers Embarrass America? Check
So yup the headline is 100% factual.  i will debate though the accuracy of his statement, since he lumped us all (Americans that is) together and said we are all embarrased... I for one am an American and I think there are indicators that actions of humans in general are certainly not preventing global climate change but are we causing it? Nope not doing it.  Global climate change has been going on for millions of years... most of which oddly enough occurred BEFORE the advent of CFC's and the internal combustion engine. So to address Billy-Boy's statement I am not embarrased at all by those who deny we are the cause of "global warming".

However to play devil's advocate, consider this headline https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-republicans-remain-silent-for-most-of-obamas-speech/2011/09/08/gIQAy3NXDK_story.html for the most part it is not quite as obvious a rhetoric as the Fox headline, however it is also in fact 100% correct YET lends itself to the belief and position that the house republicans SHOULD have been cheering, hooping, and clapping at the pile of crap the Obama was shoveling in that speech.  Not trying to sidetrack the thread mind you with another political avenue (the speech) just citing an example where rhetoric comes into play on both sides of the aisle, its just that the Dems are admittedly slicker when it comes to doing it.

Just because something is true doesn't mean it's objective journalism.

Would it be fair, balanced, etc, if I were to preface everything I ever say about Bush with "Former Coke Head," "Former Drunk," etc?

The Washington Post headline is obviously due to recent behavior by the REpublican house, especially the "You Lie" incident. Saying they remained silent doesn't imply they should be cheering at all, that's a weird conclusion to draw, as it could easily imply that they were supposed to be booing and jeering his speech.

[Perpetual Change]

So, Morgan Freeman says he thinks the tea-party is racist. And viola, a new bizarre Fox headline appears.

[Super Dude]

Link?

[Progmetty]

Morgan Freeman is the same guy who once said he doesn't believe in Black History month cause there's no such thing as black history, only American history. This headline is about that guy..

[El Barto]

Damn,  I desperately want to make a political joke about this,  but I really don't know where to begin.

https://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/09/22/guide-to-giving-deep-tissue-orgasm/?intcmp=obnetwork

[bosk1]

  I so hate being conservative at times when it just seems like 90% of the conservatives who open their mouths are insane morons. 

Will you guys please do me a favor and start using the "report" button more often?

[El Barto]

Did I miss something?

[Super Dude]

Did I miss something?

[Orion1967]

Every once in awhile, someone asserts that the left's cable networks are just as bad. This argument literally gets blown to pieces every time. Fox has such a long, well-recorded history of being unfair and evil.

Opinions vary

[William Wallace]

Every once in awhile, someone asserts that the left's cable networks are just as bad. This argument literally gets blown to pieces every time. Fox has such a long, well-recorded history of being unfair and evil.

I doubt you can point to any objective evidence to support that, and studies churned out by left wing think tanks don't count. But even if it was true, it's like a legal defense that points the finger at the worse behavior of other criminals. The fact that Fox sucks more than MSNBC doesn't make the latter a reliable news source.

[Super Dude]

Every once in awhile, someone asserts that the left's cable networks are just as bad. This argument literally gets blown to pieces every time. Fox has such a long, well-recorded history of being unfair and evil.

I doubt you can point to any objective evidence to support that, and studies churned out by left wing think tanks don't count. But even if it was true, it's like a legal defense that points the finger at the worse behavior of other criminals. The fact that Fox sucks more than MSNBC doesn't make the latter a reliable news source.

Not much to contribute here, but isn't a fallback argument like that exactly the sort of thing that PC is talking about?  It's wrong because it's liberal.

[El Barto]

Every once in awhile, someone asserts that the left's cable networks are just as bad. This argument literally gets blown to pieces every time. Fox has such a long, well-recorded history of being unfair and evil.

I doubt you can point to any objective evidence to support that, and studies churned out by left wing think tanks don't count. But even if it was true, it's like a legal defense that points the finger at the worse behavior of other criminals. The fact that Fox sucks more than MSNBC doesn't make the latter a reliable news source.

Except that this isn't a thread about how great CNN and MSNBC are.  It's a thread about how crappy FOX is.  Others are making the point that "yeah, well,  everybody else does it!"

[Perpetual Change]

Did I miss something?

I thought it was me, but I'm already on the watchlist, so I guess I'm in the clear... 

I doubt you can point to any objective evidence to support that, and studies churned out by left wing think tanks don't count. But even if it was true, it's like a legal defense that points the finger at the worse behavior of other criminals. The fact that Fox sucks more than MSNBC doesn't make the latter a reliable news source.

Considering nothing short of a right wing think tank saying it will make you happy, I'm not even gonna bother with this one...

Except that this isn't a thread about how great CNN and MSNBC are.  It's a thread about how crappy FOX is.  Others are making the point that "yeah, well,  everybody else does it!"

Even so, I've never noticed anyone else do it as consistently Fox.

Okay, so I will bite. This is the first thing that came up when I googled "media bias":

Rank
News Outlet
ADA
 
 
 
Score
 
1
Newshour with Jim Lehrer
55.8
 
2
CNN NewsNight with Aaron Brown
56.0
 
3
ABC Good Morning America
56.1
 
4
Drudge Report
60.4
 
5
Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume
39.7
 
6
ABC World News Tonight
61.0
 
7
NBC Nightly News
61.6
 
8
USA Today
63.4
 
9
NBC Today Show
64.0
 
10
Washington Times
35.4
 
11
Time Magazine
65.4
 
12
U.S. News and World Report
65.8
 
13
NPR Morning Edition
66.3
 
14
Newsweek
66.3
 
15
CBS Early Show
66.6
 
16
Washington Post
66.6
 
17
LA Times
70.0
 
18
CBS Evening News
73.7
 
19
New York Times
73.7
 
20
Wall Street Journal
85.1

https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

So, according to research done here, Fox sucks, the Drudge report is about as bad as the other media outlets (which are, in turn, slightly better than Fox), NPR gets undue shit for being a liberal breeding den, and the New York Times and Journal are somewhat respectable news sources. Again, as I told someone who PM'd me about this, I have no doubt that MSNBC's pundits are as bad as Fox's. The editorial side of things, imo, is about the same. But Fox's bias seems to leak into its actual news coverage more often than the others.

Anyway, I realize all this research is like ten years old. Some things have no-doubt changed. I wonder how the Drudge report would rank up these days, since creating conspiracy theories to pin on Obama had become its main agenda apparently 

A friend here at University studies just that specific topic, so I'll ask her for something more up-to-date today or tomorrow. But, from all I looked at, most of the research done that supports "conventional" wisdom-- that Fox is bad, that the New York Times is relatively good, and than the other networks are bad but still better than Fox-- is actually the quantitative, serious stuff. I saw some other "research" about the liberal side of things being more biased, but that was usually the less quantitative type with titles like, "The Liberal Media Bias Exposed!".

I suspect, at the end of the day, Bill O'Reilly is right about the whole "center-right" country thing. We are still a center-right country. Because of that, a right of center bias seems to work for a lot of us, as it caters to our traditional upbringing. I remember growing up, when I decided to turn on Fox News for the first time... It was the first time I'd ever wanted to go out of my way to watch news for some reason, and boy did it feel like stepping into a pair of shoes that were just my size.

  I so hate being conservative at times when it just seems like 90% of the conservatives who open their mouths are insane morons. 

I don't get it either. Everyone keeps saying that I'm being biased for thinking Fox is the worst cable network. They're forgetting, or still don't know, that there's at least 2- maybe 3- people on the RNC stage right now who I think could do a better job running the country than Obama. I'm not conservative at all really, but I'm willing to hear both sides. With conservatives, it's like if you don't agree with every point you're just another blind liberal.

[Super Dude]

I don't.  Not that I think Obama is doing such a great job, but I sure as hell won't trust any of the rest of 'em.

[Perpetual Change]

I don't.  Not that I think Obama is doing such a great job, but I sure as hell won't trust any of the rest of 'em.

I would. Because, if Obama's taught me anything, it's that having a grad-school vocabulary doesn't make you any less of a suck-up to your advisors' agendas than Bush was.

[Super Dude]

But voting for one of the other current hopefuls pretty much guarantees it.  I will never vote for right of center, and it's not because I'll only vote for one party or anything like that but because I disagree with the conservative ideology itself (I think I worded that wrong but you get the idea).

[Perpetual Change]

I'm pretty sure it's already guaranteed. 

Although, who knows. Obama might be better once he doesn't have to worry about being re-elected.

[El Barto]

Two years ago Obama didn't have to worry about being reelected,  and he was just as big a douchebag then as he is now. 

[antigoon]

It's like, why are we again willing to vote for a man who sweet talked us a load of bullshit four years ago? At least most of those Republican hacks are actually going to do or try to do what they say   And the way Barry's rhetoric is starting to shift to the left again makes it so damn obvious that he's back in campaign mode.


If you want to talk media bias just look at how the US hikers who were just released from Iran are being covered right now. Or the build up/beginning to the Iraq war.

[Perpetual Change]

Back on topic:

Man Suspected of Murdering Young Massachusetts Mom May Be In U.S. Illegally, Police Say

Read more: https://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/27/man-suspected-murdering-young-massachusetts-mom-may-be-in-us-illegally-police/?test=latestnews#ixzz1ZCyLgwP4

What do you guys think-- forget why this story is on the frontpage to begin with. Does that information really belong in the hed? Or are Fox just doing what they always doing and trying to politicize everything?

Oh, this article is fun: Obama's Feisty BET Interview Highlights Challenge He Faces in Rallying Black Voters

Obama's Feisty BET Interview Highlights Challenge He Faces in Rallying Black Voters

Read more: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/27/obamas-feisty-bet-interview-highlights-challenge-sidelining-black-vote/#ixzz1ZCzRV3t7

Some of the treasures here:

Obama defended his policies as helping minorities even though he refuses to support programs that only target them.

Gotta wonder why the journalist at Fox thought it was necessary to take that cheap shop. It's like he wanted Obama to support programs that only target minorities so Bill'O and Hannity could call him a racist later.

On Saturday, in a speech at the annual awards dinner of the Congressional Black Caucus, Obama told blacks to quit crying and complaining and “put on your marching shoes” to follow him into battle for jobs and opportunity.

Another classy choice of words here.

Compare this with the article about BET, which the Fox article is based on:

It’s been a tough few months for President Obama, who has been the target of criticisms from his most loyal base—African-American constituents and lawmakers—who have felt like he’s not done enough to ease or even acknowledge their economic pain. But in an exclusive interview with BET News that aired Monday night, Obama finally said he understands what they’ve been experiencing and answered his critics. When asked why he has not tried to implement policy solutions that specifically target African-Americans, however, he said that’s not how America works.

https://www.bet.com/news/politics/2011/09/26/obama-discusses-jobs-and-the-economy-in-an-exclusive-sit-down-with-bet

Hardly seems very "feisty" at all, does it?

Again, Fox seems to just like drumming stuff up in their hard news so they can give their pundits something to work with. Do the other cable networks have bad pundits? Sure. But I rarely see it going this far, this shamelessly.

[El Barto]

Back on topic:

Man Suspected of Murdering Young Massachusetts Mom May Be In U.S. Illegally, Police Say

Read more: https://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/27/man-suspected-murdering-young-massachusetts-mom-may-be-in-us-illegally-police/?test=latestnews#ixzz1ZCyLgwP4

What do you guys think-- forget why this story is on the frontpage to begin with. Does that information really belong in the hed? Or are Fox just doing what they always doing and trying to politicize everything?

It's not the headline that troubles me, it's that the story is the status of the alleged killer and not the murder itself.  Apparently murders are only newsworthy if the suspect is here illegally.

Now, that said,  it's a much a facet of tabloid journalism as it is right-wing fear mongering.  All media outlets love harping on subjects that scare people.  Illegal aliens murdering white mothers certainly qualifies.

[Super Dude]

It's like, why are we again willing to vote for a man who sweet talked us a load of bullshit four years ago? At least most of those Republican hacks are actually going to do or try to do what they say   And the way Barry's rhetoric is starting to shift to the left again makes it so damn obvious that he's back in campaign mode.


If you want to talk media bias just look at how the US hikers who were just released from Iran are being covered right now. Or the build up/beginning to the Iraq war.

I would love to see you or anyone else here (hell, even me) sit through their first presidential briefing and realistically come up with a way of fulfilling any one of their campaign promises.  And if you think any one of those Republican hacks will be any different, you don't understand the paradox of presidential power.

[bosk1]

I disagree with the conservative ideology itself

What a strange way to live one's life.  Anyway...

Gotta wonder why the journalist at Fox thought it was necessary to take that cheap shop.

Hmm...  I feel like the answer is in here somewhere.  Let's take a closer look...

why the journalist at Fox

Closer...

the journalist at

Closer...

Closer...

journalist

Aha!

Whenever I feel like I belong to a profession that has a slimey, immoral reputation, I remind myself that there are politicians and journalists in the world, and suddenly, I feel better.

[Super Dude]

Long-ass post

Why is that a strange way to live one's life?  I just disagree with the underlying philosophy, and consequently would prefer not to live in a country using it as basis and primary motivator for its governmental policies.  It's the same as preferring to live in a republic over an all-out democracy, or a consociational federation over a federated nation-state.

[antigoon]

It's like, why are we again willing to vote for a man who sweet talked us a load of bullshit four years ago? At least most of those Republican hacks are actually going to do or try to do what they say   And the way Barry's rhetoric is starting to shift to the left again makes it so damn obvious that he's back in campaign mode.


If you want to talk media bias just look at how the US hikers who were just released from Iran are being covered right now. Or the build up/beginning to the Iraq war.

I would love to see you or anyone else here (hell, even me) sit through their first presidential briefing and realistically come up with a way of fulfilling any one of their campaign promises.  And if you think any one of those Republican hacks will be any different, you don't understand the paradox of presidential power.

I'm not the one who made the promises. I never said I could do it.

I don't understand your point about the Republicans. By that logic you'd be fine with a Republican president.

[Super Dude]

I mean to be honest, I chalk Obama's renewal of the PATRIOT Act up to that very paradox.  After all, it's one of the few things he can get passed with not much more than a murmur from Congress.  My fear is that with a Republican presidency, such a bill getting through would be the least of our worries.  After all, Bush was able to get all sorts of tax cuts through no problem, he started two wars, he fucked with the international situations in no less than three countries (India, NK, and Taiwan, to be precise), and he kinda started this whole PATRIOT Act business.

I guess to sum up, imo under Democratic auspices we will have a couple of bad policies such as renewal of the PATRIOT Act, but we don't have to worry about the reversal of the DADT repeal, all our environmental protection policies going straight to hell, and the economic situation would be much, much worse.  I believe under a Republican presidency, truly bad policies will be the norm in a way we don't see under Obama, all for the sake of smaller government (which itself I don't agree with).

[antigoon]

You may be right, I just wish there could have been more action taken to reverse that stuff. By doing nothing, it's like the Obama administration turned what was then right-wing crazy into bipartisan consensus.

I think in the end, the most compelling reason I've heard to vote Obama in '12 is the Supreme Court nominees. But even then...I'd feel dirty doing it.

[Super Dude]

I mean I'm not saying the Obama administration has been all that great.  I just trust that a Republican administration would be far worse, especially considering how much politics in recent years have in fact skewed to the right.  The country we'd be living in by 2016 would be so far from the political ideology I envision for this country that I'm not sure I'd want to live here anymore.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: we need a new New Left.

[bosk1]

Supreme Court nominees

The power to appoint judges is perhaps the single biggest reason a left-leaning president should never, EVER be allowed to occupy the white house under any circumstances. 

[antigoon]

If I agree with you will you tell me the secrets of succeeding on law school exams?

[bosk1]

Yes.
1.  Make your own outlines.  Then check them against commercial outlines.  Don't believe any professor who says you should never use a commercial outline.
2.  Don't memorize your outline.  Learn your outline.
3.  In answering essay questions, lay out the rule and set it off in bold, underline, whatever.  Apply the facts to the rule and argue to a conclusion.  Then address why another conclusion is either equally valid or not valid. 

Okay, your turn.

[antigoon]

Thanks! It appears I'm on the right track. Everyone's still trying to deny the usefulness of commercial outlines, but they exist for a reason. Of course, using them seems like a death wish, but that doesn't mean they're useless. I'm going to start outlining tomorrow

edit: i meant using them exclusively 

Supreme Court nominees

The power to appoint judges is perhaps the single biggest reason a left-leaning president should never, EVER be allowed to occupy the white house under any circumstances. 

[bosk1]

People who have trouble on law school exams often don't know how to do #3 above.  Most people figure out #1 and #2 to a reasonable degree.  I'm sure you've been through it already.  But a simplified illustration would be:

Facts:  Julie, a resident of California, sued Mike, a resident of New York in the federal district court, for fraud.  Julie as asking for $50,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages.  Mike moves to dismiss on the grounds that subject matter jurisdiction is improper.

A proper answer would be something like:  The first issue is whether diversity jurisdiction is proper.  [spot the issue]  Diversity jurisdiction is proper where the parties reside in different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.  [state the rule]  Here, Julie is a resident of California and Mike is a resident of New York.  Consequently, the "different states" requirement is met.  Additionally, because Julie is asking for $50,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages, the aggregate amount in controversy of $550,000 exceeds the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement.  [applying facts to law]  Therefore, the amount in controversy requirement is also met.  Because both the "different states" and "amount in controversy" requirements are met, diversity jurisdiction is proper.  [conclusion]

If there are additional facts, you can argue other positions, such as:  "Joe will likely argue that, because he purchased a house in California where he spends 50% of his time, the "different states" requirement is not met.  However..."

[Perpetual Change]

Aha!

Whenever I feel like I belong to a profession that has a slimey, immoral reputation, I remind myself that there are politicians and journalists in the world, and suddenly, I feel better.

Haha!

You know, I was about to rage at you and then I remember: you're right! The way we mythologize the press in this country is almost as bad as the way we mythologize the founders. The press in the US was, in a lot of ways, founded on slinging undue propaganda against the British, and in the 19th century corporate sponsors had a way-too-easy time getting their "objective" papers to demonize union members.

But during the 70s, a couple newspapers realized that an objective press is actually really valuable to our system. These people started trying to hold themselves up to those lofty, mythological standards. Plausible or not, I think we're better off for it, and journalism as a profession doesn't deserve a bad rap because there's Fox, just like you as a lawyer don't deserve a bad rap because someone got away with suing McDonald's up the wazoo for serving hot Coffee.

I mean, look at the two articles about the debate in the black community over Barack Obama. The Fox News article, under the "fair and balanced" tag-line, is manipulative, condescending, and just paints an all-around false picture of the debate which pits the entire black community against Obama. BET, an entertainment magazine largely geared towards blacks, explains the circumstances in a much more objective and accurate way. Do people not see the elephant in the room there?

Supreme Court nominees

The power to appoint judges is perhaps the single biggest reason a left-leaning president should never, EVER be allowed to occupy the white house under any circumstances. 

Well, I've gotta say, I find this just as off-the-wall as Super Dude's "against conservatism on principle" remark.

 

Since your position likely comes down to the entire the the Constitution is a flawless document handed down to us by the Founders, I won't bother prying further. I think there's an abundance of evidence out there as to why it's not even close, but that's a whole new can of worms.