FOX aired significantly less of Dem convention speeches than other cables

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Waluigi, Aug 3, 2004.

  1. Waluigi macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #1
    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

    --Waluigi
     
  2. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #2
    Of course! They are running scared! Heaven forbid people who watch Fox actually vote for Kerry :eek:
     
  3. Leo Hubbard macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #3
    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.
     
  4. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #4
    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
     
  5. Leo Hubbard macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #5
    I think it would be an appropriate backdrop for his show.
     
  6. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #6
  7. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #7
    Or ignore my underlying message... Whatever make you feel good.

    Taft
     
  8. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #8
    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.
     
  9. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #9
    my prediction:

    MSNBC: 7 hours, 20 minutes
    CNN: 9 hours, 52 minutes
    Fox: 10 hours, 54 minutes
     
  10. superbovine macrumors 68030

    superbovine

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    #10
    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.
     
  11. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #11
    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.
     
  12. Awimoway macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2002
    Location:
    at the edge
    #12
    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
     
  13. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #13
    PBS in our area had the whole thing on.
     
  14. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #14
    And you don't have any problem with deliberate bias?
     
  15. superbovine macrumors 68030

    superbovine

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    #15
    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.
     
  16. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #16
    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?
     
  17. Chane macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    #17
    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.
     
  18. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #18
    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."
     
  19. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #19
    Neither have I. superbovine, do you have a transcript or report to back your insinuation up?
     
  20. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #20
    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...
     
  21. Awimoway macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2002
    Location:
    at the edge
    #21
    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.
     
  22. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #22
    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....
     
  23. Awimoway macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2002
    Location:
    at the edge
    #23
    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?
     
  24. Awimoway macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2002
    Location:
    at the edge
    #24
    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.
     
  25. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #25
    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?
     

Share This Page