FOX aired significantly less of Dem convention speeches than other cables

[Waluigi]

LIVE CONVENTION SPEECH AIRTIME

Total
Fox: 3 hours, 40 minutes
CNN: 4 hours, 56 minutes
MSNBC: 5 hours, 27 minutes

Not to mention Fox has blatantly conservative hosts such as brit humme, and sean hannity, and political 'analysts' such as Newt Gingrich.

On a positive note: FOX had poor ratings, so less people were watching RNC talking points being repeated then usual.

I can't wait to see how much time FOX gives to the commander in chief's convention...

link (http://mediamatters.org/items/200408020002)

--Waluigi

[Neserk]

Of course! They are running scared! Heaven forbid people who watch Fox actually vote for Kerry :eek:

[Leo Hubbard]

FOX had a studio right above the DNC convention so you could watch the convention behind them while they were doing their show. They piped the sound in so you could hear the speakers if you strained hard enough over the voices of the commentators as they did their shows. That is in addition to their instant coverage of so called important speakers at the convention. I doubt they included that time in the computations.

[Taft]

FOX had a studio right above the DNC convention so you could watch the convention behind them while they were doing their show. They piped the sound in so you could hear the speakers if you strained hard enough over the voices of the commentators as they did their shows. That is in addition to their instant coverage of so called important speakers at the convention. I doubt they included that time in the computations.

Not that it's really relevent, though.

What if CBS's coverage of Barnem and Baily Circus consisted of Dan Rather talking in front of a limited view of the main ring? Would you think that was a broadcast of the circus or of the news? I vote news.

Taft

[Leo Hubbard]

Not that it's really relevent, though.

What if CBS's coverage of Barnem and Baily Circus consisted of Dan Rather talking in front of a limited view of the main ring? Would you think that was a broadcast of the circus or of the news? I vote news.

Taft
I think it would be an appropriate backdrop for his show.

[IJ Reilly]

(I can't remember an election when the DNC was so heavily covered by the majors though, but maybe my memory is foggy.)

Less is more in convention coverage
Networks to scale back; cable channels plan extended broadcasts (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5454579/)

[Taft]

I think it would be an appropriate backdrop for his show.

Or ignore my underlying message... Whatever make you feel good.

Taft

[Thomas Veil]

My predictions for the RNC air times...

MSNBC: 3 hours, 40 minutes
CNN: 4 hours, 56 minutes
Fox: 5 hours, 27 minutes


(I can't remember an election when the DNC was so heavily covered by the majors though, but maybe my memory is foggy.)
You must be a lot younger than me, then, because when I was growing up, they covered it "gavel-to-gavel" (7 p.m. to 11 p.m.+), on all three networks, every night. And with a lot less yammering than they do now.

As far as MS-NBC...when I watched them on Thursday, it seemed to me that there was quite a pronounced right-wing bias there, which surprised me. If that's what they've become, then they may give the GOP convention more coverage than you think.

[Don't panic]

My predictions for the RNC air times...

MSNBC: 3 hours, 40 minutes
CNN: 4 hours, 56 minutes
Fox: 5 hours, 27 minutes


(I can't remember an election when the DNC was so heavily covered by the majors though, but maybe my memory is foggy.)

my prediction:

MSNBC: 7 hours, 20 minutes
CNN: 9 hours, 52 minutes
Fox: 10 hours, 54 minutes

[superbovine]

Well, I don't think it is suprising about the times. In all honesty, if you actually feel that it is offensive that Fox aired less of the DNC you probably watch another channel anyways. So what does it even matter unless you watch the channel actually? To its like people complaining about the television programming is to violent, sexual, etc. If you don't like it, don't watch it.

[IJ Reilly]

Well, I don't think it is suprising about the times. In all honesty, if you actually feel that it is offensive that Fox aired less of the DNC you probably watch another channel anyways. So what does it even matter unless you watch the channel actually? To its like people complaining about the television programming is to violent, sexual, etc. If you don't like it, don't watch it.

Increasingly news sources are being treated as a matter of "taste," and that's a dangerous trend. The Fox News channel was created for the purpose of catering to Republicans who want to have what they already believe verified. The bias in their reporting and commentary is pervasive and intentional. Their coverage of the DNC is only one example of this. The odd and frightening part is, a lot of people still don't believe that Fox is biased. They think Fox is the only source that tells it like it is, and seem to cling to the notion that any news source that provides equal time and consideration to both sides of a debate is the biased source, not Fox, which openly spins their coverage towards the Republican side.

[Awimoway]

Well, I don't think it is suprising about the times. In all honesty, if you actually feel that it is offensive that Fox aired less of the DNC you probably watch another channel anyways. So what does it even matter unless you watch the channel actually? To its like people complaining about the television programming is to violent, sexual, etc. If you don't like it, don't watch it.

I think the point is that Fox makes a point of pissing all over every other news organization for being biased and trumpets themselves nightly for being the only source of objective truth. Outside of Fox News employees themselves, few will dispute that it's a very right-wing news organization, but the blatant way in which Fox lies about that obvious fact is what makes them so galling.

I don't watch it, but sometimes my right-wing boss at work has it on. But he's too far away to be able to hear it. Meanwhile, all the liberal copy-editors who sit under the TV hear it while we work. Sometimes I think my boss does it just to pester us a little. :D

[Krizoitz]

You must be a lot younger than me, then, because when I was growing up, they covered it "gavel-to-gavel" (7 p.m. to 11 p.m.+), on all three networks, every night. And with a lot less yammering than they do now.

As far as MS-NBC...when I watched them on Thursday, it seemed to me that there was quite a pronounced right-wing bias there, which surprised me. If that's what they've become, then they may give the GOP convention more coverage than you think.

PBS in our area had the whole thing on.

[IJ Reilly]

That is true, fox is in it for the money as is all of the news networks. And since Fox caters to conservatives they are going to air stuff that will keep viewers watching.

And you don't have any problem with deliberate bias?

[superbovine]

Increasingly news sources are being treated as a matter of "taste," and that's a dangerous trend. The Fox News channel was created for the purpose of catering to Republicans who want to have what they already believe verified. The bias in their reporting and commentary is pervasive and intentional. Their coverage of the DNC is only one example of this. The odd and frightening part is, a lot of people still don't believe that Fox is biased. They think Fox is the only source that tells it like it is, and seem to cling to the notion that any news source that provides equal time and consideration to both sides of a debate is the biased source, not Fox, which openly spins their coverage towards the Republican side.

that is a great point about taste. i think it is important though to seperate political pundents and news caster themselves. i.e. pundents jobs is to create debate. going back to taste, there is difference between an American 'news' personality sound like they would want American troops to die to prove their point. i don't mind good health dissent, but i don't like listen to people that sound like they want my fellow American to die.

The fact the Fox was create to put a conservative spin on the news doesn't bother me. the median of television which came from film. film was never intended to be objective. even print media, isn't really objective. film is based on the perception of the camera controled by the director and television is based on the producer control. both medians suffer from the fact that there is a human writing the story, and it hard to keep their personal views out the point they are trying to convey. even the documentarys creator never intended a film documentary to be objective. the fact that eveyone knows that Fox lends to right is a good thing, because it allows people to make a informed choices when selecting their news outlet.

[pseudobrit]

What should be more important for a news source: making a profit or delivering responsible, intelligent journalism?

What should be more important for a doctor: making a profit or delivering sound medical treatment and saving lives?

Why would you accept journalism that's focused more on making profit if you wouldn't accept treatment from a doctor who was focused only on making money?

[Chane]

I tend to believe that most people don't know that Fox News is right-wing biased. In fact, my mom said the other day that she doesn't like newspapers because of their liberal slant. I know for a fact that she doesn't read the newspaper and in fact does watch Fox News and listen to radio shows that hosted by Fox News personalities - those of which have criticized certain newspapers about their liberal bias.

Of course, knowing the bias that Fox News exhibits makes watching it much different. I can tell when a news analyst will blatantly spins a topic. It's the fact that I see people around me who cannot detect the spin that disappoints me.

[IJ Reilly]

that is a great point about taste. i think it is important though to seperate political pundents and news caster themselves. i.e. pundents jobs is to create debate. going back to taste, there is difference between an American 'news' personality sound like they would want American troops to die to prove their point. i don't mind good health dissent, but i don't like listen to people that sound like they want my fellow American to die.

The fact the Fox was create to put a conservative spin on the news doesn't bother me. the median of television which came from film. film was never intended to be objective. even print media, isn't really objective. film is based on the perception of the camera controled by the director and television is based on the producer control. both medians suffer from the fact that there is a human writing the story, and it hard to keep their personal views out the point they are trying to convey. even the documentarys creator never intended a film documentary to be objective. the fact that eveyone knows that Fox lends to right is a good thing, because it allows people to make a informed choices when selecting their news outlet.

Hardly. I think some of us have completely lost track of the purpose of journalism. It is to inform, not to persuade us of the rightness of what we already believe. The fact that nothing is completely objective is absolutely no excuse for injecting deliberate bias into reporting.

And for the record, I have yet to encounter any news source that "wants my fellow Americans to die."

[pseudobrit]

And for the record, I have yet to encounter any news source that "wants my fellow Americans to die."

Neither have I. superbovine, do you have a transcript or report to back your insinuation up?

[blackfox]

that is a great point about taste. i think it is important though to seperate political pundents and news caster themselves. i.e. pundents jobs is to create debate. going back to taste, there is difference between an American 'news' personality sound like they would want American troops to die to prove their point. i don't mind good health dissent, but i don't like listen to people that sound like they want my fellow American to die.

The fact the Fox was create to put a conservative spin on the news doesn't bother me. the median of television which came from film. film was never intended to be objective. even print media, isn't really objective. film is based on the perception of the camera controled by the director and television is based on the producer control. both medians suffer from the fact that there is a human writing the story, and it hard to keep their personal views out the point they are trying to convey. even the documentarys creator never intended a film documentary to be objective. the fact that eveyone knows that Fox lends to right is a good thing, because it allows people to make a informed choices when selecting their news outlet.
I do not know if I agree with your assertion that the general public is aware of the inherent bias involved with mediated information, especially with News, which they tend to feel is value-neutral, despite evidence to the contrary, passive or not...

As for FOX themselves, I do not believe that everyone knows that they are right-leaning, and they go out-of their way to distort the debate by the use of "fair and balanced" and "we report...you decide", both of which undercut the essential reality of mediated news in general and that of FOX in particular...this strategy also implies that the other News networks are somehow less-fair and accurate with their more left-leaning coverage, making a subtle value-judgement/connection with the left=dishonest. This is all really a result of clever marketing, with FOX able to take their biased coverage, present it as fair, and thus make everyone else look unfair by their standards...

Now, this may all just be business, but the ability of ALL news organizations to report that which is important and necessary to the complex democracy we live in are compromised when this main reason of existence is watered down by ulterior motives...

[Awimoway]

And you don't have any problem with deliberate bias?

I don't have a problem with deliberate bias. Unbaised news coverage is a myth. I much prefer news organizations that put their cards on the table. I don't mind Fox being biased, for example, but I do mind that they keep making bald-faced lies about not being biased. Meanwhile, I mind other news organizations for not reckoning with their obvious bias. Dan Rather is so liberal it hurts. ABC News handing over their Sunday morning news show to a Clinton campaign chief is ludicrous. CNN relying on a lefty lawyer and Clinton apologist (Jeffrey Toobin) as their legal correspondent is obnoxious. Why? Because all those organizations claim to be objective, unbiased sources of news coverage and analysis.

My sig, for example, is not an attack on Fox news for its bias but for the fact that so many lemmings who watch it really believe that it is "fair and balanced."

But, to repeat my main point, objective media is a total myth. Everyone has a viewpoint, and there is no way it won't filter the way they cover the news. The notion of "objective" news coverage is very modern. 60 years ago, every newspaper had a bias and didn't hide from it. We are seeing a gradual return to that kind of coverage — mostly as a right-wing response to perceived liberal bias in the mainstream media — and I don't think it's unhealthy so long as people bear in mind that it is biased in its own right.

[skunk]

My sig, for example, is not an attack on Fox news for its bias but for the fact that so many lemmings who watch it really believe that it is "fair and balanced."
Much as I agree with your other points, it's worth remembering that what is "fair and balanced" to a Republican is not necessarily "fair and balanced" to a Democrat. Those "lemmings" are quite within their rights....

[Awimoway]

Hardly. I think some of us have completely lost track of the purpose of journalism. It is to inform, not to persuade us of the rightness of what we already believe. The fact that nothing is completely objective is absolutely no excuse for injecting deliberate bias into reporting.

And for the record, I have yet to encounter any news source that "wants my fellow Americans to die."

I'm not convinced that what you think is deliberate injection of bias really is deliberate. But I wish it were, because at least everyone would be more honest about their point of view.

The problem with this discussion is that it consists of mostly liberals trying to pinpoint what they hate about a news organization (Fox) that does not share their point of view. We accuse it of being deliberately biased while privileging other news organizations for not deliberately trying to insert bias into their news coverage.

But how can we be so sure? Many other news organizations in this country are actually pretty leftist. I say this as a liberal who grew up a conservative. I've seen the bias from both sides, and it's all biased, just in different directions. If this were a website where conservatives prevailed, we would instead be hearing about how the other networks — CNN, for example — gave too much coverage of the DNC, and threw softballs at the Democrats in the interview booth. We would be hearing about how the New York Times overemphasizes A and failed to mention B.

The point is that it's all biased. But conservatives think only liberal media is biased and liberals think only conservative media is biased. We are all blind to our own side. And if we are blind, what makes you believe the news organizations themselves are any less blind?

[Awimoway]

Much as I agree with your other points, it's worth remembering that what is "fair and balanced" to a Republican is not necessarily "fair and balanced" to a Democrat. Those "lemmings" are quite within their rights....

I agree. My sig is a political statement based on my liberal viewpoint. See my above post for why much of the rest of American media is liberally biased, and why no one is complaining about it in this thread.

[IJ Reilly]

I'm not convinced that what you think is deliberate injection of bias really is deliberate. But I wish it were, because at least everyone would be more honest about their point of view.

The problem with this discussion is that it consists of mostly liberals trying to pinpoint what they hate about a news organization (Fox) that does not share their point of view. We accuse it of being deliberately biased while privileging other news organizations for not deliberately trying to insert bias into their news coverage.

But how can we be so sure? Many other news organizations in this country are actually pretty leftist. I say this as a liberal who grew up a conservative. I've seen the bias from both sides, and it's all biased, just in different directions. If this were a website where conservatives prevailed, we would instead be hearing about how the other networks — CNN, for example — gave too much coverage of the DNC, and threw softballs at the Democrats in the interview booth. We would be hearing about how the New York Times overemphasizes A and failed to mention B.

The point is that it's all biased. But conservatives think only liberal media is biased and liberals think only conservative media is biased. We are all blind to our own side. And if we are blind, what makes you believe the news organizations themselves are any less blind?

I don't know what "too much" coverage of a convention means. As has already been mentioned, gavel-to-gavel convention coverage used to be the network standard. No more. So will CNN still be "liberal" if they cover the RNC at the same or similar length?

As I said above, the fact that true objectivity in reporting might be elusive does not excuse outright bias. Fairness takes effort and should be a prized trait for a journalist, one which they nurture. The FOX formula is to simply throw that entire idea into the wastebasket, as though it was obsolete.

I also don't know much about Dan Rather's politics, but he is after all, a person, not a network. My point being, as nearly as I can tell, there never has been a television news network devoted to the proposition that news should be told with certain political biases built in. A line is being crossed, from news, to advertising a political party. Of what possible value to a democracy can this be?

[blackfox]

I don't have a problem with deliberate bias. Unbaised news coverage is a myth. I much prefer news organizations that put their cards on the table. I don't mind Fox being biased, for example, but I do mind that they keep making bald-faced lies about not being biased. Meanwhile, I mind other news organizations for not reckoning with their obvious bias. Dan Rather is so liberal it hurts. ABC News handing over their Sunday morning news show to a Clinton campaign chief is ludicrous. CNN relying on a lefty lawyer and Clinton apologist (Jeffrey Toobin) as their legal correspondent is obnoxious. Why? Because all those organizations claim to be objective, unbiased sources of news coverage and analysis.

My sig, for example, is not an attack on Fox news for its bias but for the fact that so many lemmings who watch it really believe that it is "fair and balanced."

But, to repeat my main point, objective media is a total myth. Everyone has a viewpoint, and there is no way it won't filter the way they cover the news. The notion of "objective" news coverage is very modern. 60 years ago, every newspaper had a bias and didn't hide from it. We are seeing a gradual return to that kind of coverage — mostly as a right-wing response to perceived liberal bias in the mainstream media — and I don't think it's unhealthy so long as people bear in mind that it is biased in its own right.

I enjoyed your points Awimoway, and I think most of us can agree that any attack on FOX is based not so much on their obvious bias, but on their insistence of otherwise. Whether this makes them better or worse than other News networks who are more subtle with this same issue, I can only guess.

I believe the larger point is being missed, however, as this problem is systemic in nature and thusly poorly argued on particulars. The systems of news delivery will always involve people, and with those people the inherent biases and opinions that they imply.

Your comment about Dan Rather reminds me of an old college lecture I attended which raised the question of Liberal Bias in the media. Although the example I use was used in an attempt to disprove the "liberal bias" assertion, I feel it is applicable to any comparable situation. The example involved the Network Anchor (ie Dan Rather) and mentioned that although that person is the "face of the news", he has relatively little control over what news he/she is given to present or even to editorialize on. So to judge a news organization by the apparant political affiliation/biases of it's anchors, or other on-screen personanlities is to some degree, a red herring. Undoubtably, someone like Rather, by virtue of their position and long-standing in the business has more power than a mere Network affiliate, they still have a relative lack of control of content.

As you move up the chain-of-command, to Editors, producers, Bureau heads and so on, you also run into individual people, also with their own biases and opinions, but I feel those are only exercised to the degree that the system allows them to be, or in those ways that do not conflict with the goals of the organization.

In modern times, the primary goal, is of course, to make money...by attracting viewership, and in turn by collecting advertising revenue. For some Cable networks, their own interests are subjugated to the interests of Cable distributers, who are also in it the profitability.

Now, I could go on to speculate about the shallow and polemic nature of modern News Networks in the US, and the fact that this draws attention, thus viewership, thus money and how FOX is an excellent example of this trend, indeed they do it better than most. To compete, other networks have followed suit, a race to the bottom, as it were.

The details, or topography of this trend is not necessarily as interesting as the causes of the trend itself, which has to do with the sheer amorality of the Corporate business model, which in the age of multinational News conglomerates, is all there is.

The true wealth of relevant information lost to us, will perhaps never be known, as much of it does not deal with the interests of a particular political persuasion, but in the interests of business and Capitalism.

So we are left to argue among ourselves in a dichotomy that while perhaps real, has been blown out of proportion to be all that we see, leaving the true economic roots of politics and of news obscured...

I am sure this is obvious to many of you, and I offer no solutions...

except to say that capitalism and free-markets (even in the News business), while relying on a Free-society for their creation and existence, do not tend to promote one...and the model they suscribe to, never intended them to...freedom (of information, or whatever) is a barrier to profit, and in an amoral world, a irrelevant value...

[zimv20]

But I would contend that most people on this board know that what they are quoting from the news is biased. They are just hoping that the no one will call them on it. :)
please. there's a reason i've never posted anything from In These Times. perception of bias is highly relative, but the NY Times, LA Times, BBC and NPR are still highly respected.

most people here are good about citing their sources, so we each get to decide how much credence we give those sources.

[IJ Reilly]

We all know that the LA Times and the New York Times are deliberately biased more toward the Liberal spectrum. They run stories that are true however they put less stories in their papers that show conservatives in a good light, while they avoid stories that show liberals in a negative light.

This a such absolute bloody nonsense that I'm surprised to find myself even crediting it with this response. In short, "we all know" no such thing. You cannot use this fantasy to rationalize an (alleged) news source like FOX actively and deliberately skewing the news to suit a political agenda. There is no "balance" being created here, or even being attempted. It is a propaganda machine, from conception to delivery.

[superbovine]

Hardly. I think some of us have completely lost track of the purpose of journalism. It is to inform, not to persuade us of the rightness of what we already believe. The fact that nothing is completely objective is absolutely no excuse for injecting deliberate bias into reporting.

And for the record, I have yet to encounter any news source that "wants my fellow Americans to die."

that maybe the point, but that isn't the reality. televison itself fails the reality test which states that if you have the ability to control your own perception it is reality. television like film does not pass the test. you are presented with a image and talking head, and it is up to the audience to decided the validity of the message. that is the nature of the median there is no way around it. the median itself is biased. even if the the purpose is to inform, our humanity injects our opinion regardless of our objectives added with the fact that the median is already biased.

as your last comment, that just shows how different people view different spins on the news.

[IJ Reilly]

that maybe the point, but that isn't the reality. televison itself fails the reality test which states that if you have the ability to control your own perception it is reality. television like film does not pass the test. you are presented with a image and talking head, and it is up to the audience to decided the validity of the message. that is the nature of the median there is no way around it. the median itself is biased. even if the the purpose is to inform, our humanity injects our opinion regardless of our objectives added with the fact that the median is already biased.

as your last comment, that just shows how different people view different spins on the news.

This answer is a perfect example of deconstruction, more popularly known as relativism. It is often used as a rationale for intellectual dishonesty and moral corruption.

[Leo Hubbard]

please. there's a reason i've never posted anything from In These Times. perception of bias is highly relative, but the NY Times, LA Times, BBC and NPR are still highly respected.


by liberals maybe.

[pseudobrit]

intellectual dishonesty

Fox News dishonest?

[IJ Reilly]

Fox News dishonest?

Is the pope...

Oh, never mind. ;)

[Bobcat37]

The point is that it's all biased. But conservatives think only liberal media is biased and liberals think only conservative media is biased. We are all blind to our own side. And if we are blind, what makes you believe the news organizations themselves are any less blind?

I agree, many of us rarely take the time to step out of our own bubble and try to view things from a different perspective. Of course, going against our own paradigms can be almost impossible at times.

It's like in this topic, I can't help but laugh at the people who are bashing Fox News and then trying to stick up for the LA and NY Times... give me a break.

Anyway, bias in the news is a fun topic IMO, but I don't have much else to add.

I'd recommend you all read the books Bias and Arrogance by Bernard Goldberg, who by the way is a self-proclaimed liberal.

[zimv20]

actually, judging from this discussion, it seems these definitions apply:

conservative / right wing -- media outlet that echoes what the administration says w/o questioning it

liberal -- media outlet that questions what the administration says

[blackfox]

In the spirit of zim's latest response, let me ask you...

Back when Clinton was in Office, how did the major media-outlets cover the President?

I'll leave the answer open, as I am sure most of us are old enough to remember...

[LethalWolfe]

This has turned into a pretty good thread.

I agree that the goal of journalists should be to present an unbiased truth. But actually presenting an unbiased truth is impossible. Everyone has a story, an agenda, an angle, a different perception of events. I also agree that it's good to know what other people's/organization's bias's<sp?> are. For example, I know that FOX News leans right. I also know that this forum, as a whole, leans left.

As another poster said gathering news from multiple, varied sources (even sources you don't like) is the only way to get the whole picture (or at least atempt to get the whole picture). If you only visit places that deliver news you want to hear, well, that's not overly helpful now is it?


Lethal

[Ugg]

This has turned into a pretty good thread.

I agree that the goal of journalists should be to present an unbiased truth. But actually presenting an unbiased truth is impossible. Everyone has a story, an agenda, an angle, a different perception of events. I also agree that it's good to know what other people's/organization's bias's<sp?> are. For example, I know that FOX News leans right. I also know that this forum, as a whole, leans left.

As another poster said gathering news from multiple, varied sources (even sources you don't like) is the only way to get the whole picture (or at least atempt to get the whole picture). If you only visit places that deliver news you want to hear, well, that's not overly helpful now is it?


Lethal

It's impossible to report "truth" unless multiple sides of an issue are addressed simultaneously. That rarely happens in today's world of soundbites. I do agree though that the only way to get the entire story or at least more of the story is to go to multiple sites. I can't stomach Boortz, Rush, Fox, frontpagemag, etc so I'm sure that LH thinks I'm totally biased (He just went on my ignore list, I urge others to make use of the button instead of instigating flame wars that do this forum no good.) There are only a couple of extreme left wing sites that I visit and if anything they force me to be more critical rather than less.

[IJ Reilly]

I agree that the goal of journalists should be to present an unbiased truth. But actually presenting an unbiased truth is impossible. Everyone has a story, an agenda, an angle, a different perception of events. I also agree that it's good to know what other people's/organization's bias's<sp?> are. For example, I know that FOX News leans right. I also know that this forum, as a whole, leans left.

Now we get the heart of the matter. Biases are part of being human, but knowing that, a professional journalist actively strives to set any personal biases they might have to one side in order to report a story as fairly as possible. Some, I've seen, even seem to over-compensate.

This basic principle of fairness has been completely discarded at FOX, like some artifact of the ancient world that's no longer relevant. Their deliberately biased reporting is justified (mainly by people who watch the network) by clinging to the flimsy theory that everybody else reports with just as much spin -- but from the "other side," of course. This simply is not so. But it would require a journey beyond the confines of the FOX walled garden to understand that, a trip many are unwilling to take.

From the money side of the equation, FOX is just a business. What their corporate leaders believe politically is somewhat beside the point -- they've succeeded in training a generation of conservatives to uncritically accept their marketing pitch: that FOX, and FOX alone, tells the truth. Now, that's brand loyalty.

If they were just selling soup, this would be an admirable accomplishment. But they are ostensibly selling truth, and that to my mind makes the FOX experiment an exercise in extreme cynicism.

[mactastic]

They think Fox is the only source that tells it like it is, and seem to cling to the notion that any news source that provides equal time and consideration to both sides of a debate is the biased source, not Fox, which openly spins their coverage towards the Republican side.

While I mostly agree with you about FOX, I would like to point out that giving both sides equal coverage is a major part of the problem with our corporate media. If you want to report on the Holocaust, do you give equal time to people who deny it happened? If you are reporting on global warming should you give equal time to the tiny minority of scientists that still deny it is happening?

We give too much time to some of the tiny extremist minorities because they shout really loud when they are not given equal time. Journalists need to realize that equal time does not equate to equal validity.

[mischief]

The Closed-Circuit Network!

All surveillance, all the time!

Hundreds of hours of tedium with a few seconds at a time of really interesting stuff!

Just remember: It isn't Big Brother watching.... It's You! And your neighbors, and your parents......


Perhaps the ultimate concept in "reality TV" :D

[zimv20]

I would like to point out that giving both sides equal coverage is a major part of the problem with our corporate media. If you want to report on the Holocaust, do you give equal time to people who deny it happened? If you are reporting on global warming should you give equal time to the tiny minority of scientists that still deny it is happening?
not necessarily. most articles/reports aren't about the subject in general, but some specific aspect of it. unless that aspect is "did it really happen?" (in the case of the holocaust), i don't feel that viewpoint needs to be represented.

however, in a story about Fox covering less of the dem convention than any other major outlet, i would fully expect a representative of Fox to be given the chance to either address it or deny it.

to a certain extent, i feel it's being done. even though it may count only as "lip service." where i feel the greatest injustice is, is how "news lite" has replaced actual news. i have yet to see any privately funded news show go into any detail of kerry's platform. at best, we get a list of buzzwords. at worst, we hear about his hair, his relationship to ted kennedy, and see a video of his appearance before the senate.

[IJ Reilly]

While I mostly agree with you about FOX, I would like to point out that giving both sides equal coverage is a major part of the problem with our corporate media. If you want to report on the Holocaust, do you give equal time to people who deny it happened? If you are reporting on global warming should you give equal time to the tiny minority of scientists that still deny it is happening?

We give too much time to some of the tiny extremist minorities because they shout really loud when they are not given equal time. Journalists need to realize that equal time does not equate to equal validity.

Yes, I think we've discussed this issue before. Journalists are supposed to exercise judgment as well. Fairness isn't the same as gullibility.