Interlopers.net Forum - Half-Life 2 News & Tutorials

Fox news... the following isn't supposed to be usa bashing, just a funny anecdote really.

One time, the whole family and friends were on vacation in a southern european country. We had digital tv and, guess what, fox! We randomly chanced upon what sounded like a hate speech by, I think, Glenn Beck. Oh my god. I'd heard about him/it, but I coudln't believe it. I'm pretty happy about how something like that would get bashed and trashed pretty quickly around where I live. Seriously... we sat in awe, until we couldn't take it any more.

If he were an arab/muslim and acting the same way, I bet you he would be in Guantanamo (sry, the new one in afghanistan) faster than you could say sensationalizing. /exaggeration

You would hardly be bashing America when criticizing Fox News...

Fox News is a joke and a half, along with all the other big news stations.

nub wrote:You would hardly be bashing America when criticizing Fox News...

Fox News is a joke and a half, along with all the other big news stations.

Big 'news' stations..? You can't even say news when you think of these things any more...

I meant specific stories lined up between the different organizations so we could prove an inherent bias throughout ALL of Fox News employees, not just the prominent, outspoken Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck(who used to work for CNN if I remember correctly).

It is my hypothesis that a small few ruin it for the rest, as there are plenty of good reporters and personalities on Fox, only they aren't as well known as the inflammatory few. There are people like Neil Cavuto, Shepherd Smith, Brit Hume, and countless others, but they aren't crazy conservatives, so they don't get the attention that Beck does.

That being said, I sure have problems with some Fox programming, but even if it is a right-leaning news network, it is a necessary counter to MSNBC.


Or, as suggested by Ennui, I could go die because I am a moron apparently.

Mr-Jigsaw wrote:I meant specific stories lined up between the different organizations so we could prove an inherent bias throughout ALL of Fox News employees, not just the prominent, outspoken Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck(who used to work for CNN if I remember correctly).

"ALL employees", you say, in CAPS no less?

Totally irrelevant. Who cares what the janitor does? Even if 95% of Fox employees were die-hard liberals, it wouldn't matter as long as the other 5% who wielded 90% of the editorial power and airtime.

The Daily Show cuts this one up nicely.

And then you've got the ever-favorite chyron chynnaningans.


Gasp! It's from a "newsroom" too, so you know it is fully researched non-opinion, right?

He's a democrat? Dang!

IF 90% weren't a made up number, then you might have a point.

And you found two pictures, so we can't hear what the people are actually saying. And I suppose that the first is meant to show how crazy Fox is, but essentially what they're saying is that the hate crimes bill protects pedophiles but not veterans from hate crimes. As for the second, I suppose that you think it's how they only care about defacing the reputations of democrats, despite that Fox covered that Republican congressman who was caught at the airport soliciting sex in the bathroom.

Besides, this is all anecdotal and cannot prove a universal ideological bias.

Mr-Jigsaw wrote:Besides, this is all anecdotal and cannot prove a universal ideological bias.

First you say "ALL employees" and now it's "universal ideological bias"...

Methinketh thou hath a liking for setting thine bar most knavishly high, sir.

Second, even if true, your complaints are still irrelevant. When it comes to bias in a news service, the perceptions viewers have is the reality being debated. If given hollywood actor "Always plays formulaic evil bad guy roles", that's still true regardless of how much of a softie they might be in real life.

Mr-Jigsaw wrote: And I suppose that the first is meant to show how crazy Fox is, but essentially what they're saying is that the hate crimes bill protects pedophiles but not veterans from hate crimes.

Yeah, it was indeed pretty nutty that they'd be claiming that... right?

Look at the photo. You're walking past the TV. Is it factually researched news, or is it punditry opinion? Which one does it look like? I'll tell you. It looks like a news segment. In fact, it's what Fox actually considers a "news" segment, which would, theoretically, have "tough questions" and "fact checking", right?

The problem is their statement is false. They didn't even put the "who, me?" cover-your-ass question mark at the end. From the bill:

Nothing in this section creates a cause of action or a right to bring an action, including an action based on discrimination due to sexual orientation. As used in this section, the term 'sexual orientation' means consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality. This subsection does not limit any existing cause of action or right to bring an action, including any action under the administrative Procedure Act or the All Writs Act.

Oh, and I know what you're thinking, but it won't fly when you look up the legal definition of "consensual".

As for the second, I suppose that you think it's how they only care about defacing the reputations of democrats, despite that Fox covered that Republican congressman who was caught at the airport soliciting sex in the bathroom.

Yeah, they didn't try to (D) him, but they left off the (R) all the time.

Anyway, that's called a tokenism fallacy. Their coverage, such as it was, was probably less than half to a tenth other services. And we know it's not because they don't love a sex scandal.

Now, you can of course take the well-trodden route and argue that Fox is the "True Scotsman" of balance, but ignoring both the qualitative and quantitative differences is a bad idea.

I really laugh when people bash Fox. I was talking to some people about the back room deals made with the health care bill being passed in the senate and some of the people who I hear bash Fox had no idea about the deals made. I watch Fox every day and see conservatives and liberals talking about what is going on. The give both sides of the story. However liberals are uneasy hearing the ideas of conservatives and subsequently only want to hear what like minded people think. Fox gives a voice to both sides. If you think it is all right wing conservatives on the network take a look as Alen Colmes, Bob Beckel, Juan Williams, Dr. Lamont Hill and other liberal voices heard on a daily basis on Fox. Not to mention Fox has the highest ratings in cable news. They are viewed by both the left and the right by a margin of about 3 to 1. So if they are so one sided and so obviously slanted to the right, why would the left be watching? The simple fact of the matter is that Fox tells you what the news is and does not hold back when the news does not fall in line with their political view.

Just a side note on Glenn Beck as well. He is Pro American and knows his history. He speaks out against the policies of Obama but also trashes the republicans when they mess up as well. I watched a show the other day where he had an entire audience of black conservatives. The all spoke of how they where looked down upon by other blacks because they where looked at as sellouts. It was an eye opening show.

Anyway, I find the media far less bias on Fox. I am not an ideolog. I do not follow what any one party says just because they say it. I make up my own mind. Fox allows me to do that because I actually hear both sides...

Glenn Back is a psycho. And I'm sorry, I don't intend to bash you in any way, but you simply can't take what he says seriously in any way. It's painful. It resembles hate speech.

It's good that you make up your own mind, but Fox certainly isn't serious journalism. Of course they interview liberals too, they've got to have someone to argue with. I'm not saying other big media is better, they're all pretty useless nowadays. And just because a liberal idiot says something doesn't mean it's not true. Blindly bashing Bush in the good old days wasn't a sign of intellect, but that didn't mean he wasn't an idiot himself.

MayheM wrote:I really laugh when people bash Fox.

I bash Fox because they're sensationalist, emotion-manipulating, broken-record sounding, hate mongers. Not because of their political bias (lol). And I'm not saying any other news is any better. I don't watch any of them. Except The Onion, of course.

MayheM wrote:I really laugh when people bash Fox. I was talking to some people about the back room deals made with the health care bill being passed in the senate and some of the people who I hear bash Fox had no idea about the deals made.

My first question to you is what "back room" deals specifically were you speaking of?

Mayhem wrote:I watch Fox every day and see conservatives and liberals talking about what is going on. The give both sides of the story.

Second question is how does this make Fox any more or less biased than other cable news networks? Finding a news source that presents two sides of the political spectrum isn't anything groundbreaking or uncommon.

And presenting opposing viewpoints in a news show or during a debate isn't as important as how the opposing view is presented.

Mayhem wrote:If you think it is all right wing conservatives on the network take a look as Alen Colmes, Bob Beckel, Juan Williams, Dr. Lamont Hill and other liberal voices heard on a daily basis on Fox.

Alan Colmes described himself as a moderate in USA Today.

I'll also relate this WSJ quote from Scott Norvell, a columnist for Fox news.

"Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind."

Mayhem wrote:Not to mention Fox has the highest ratings in cable news. They are viewed by both the left and the right by a margin of about 3 to 1. So if they are so one sided and so obviously slanted to the right, why would the left be watching?

Three to one what exactly? What is this suppose to mean? Several scenarios could be created from this 3-1 ratio, it could compare the number of Fox viewers to CNN viewers, or Fox viewers to American Idol viewers.

While Fox's viewership may be impressive when comparing numbers against other cable news networks, they still fall behind other news sources in viewership. NPR brings in 20 million listeners every week, far more than the number of people watching Fox. So going by your argument one could say that NPR is the most trusted and unbiased news source in the U.S.

You also asked "why would the left be watching" Fox news, can you present evidence that there is a large number of of people who characterize themselves as liberal or democrat watching Fox news (anecdotes are not evidence)?

Mayhem wrote:Just a side note on Glenn Beck as well. He is Pro American and knows his history.

What exactly does "Pro American" mean? What does this describe?

Mayhem wrote:. . .but also trashes the republicans when they mess up as well.

He's a self described libertarian, why would him "trashing" republicans surprise you?

Mayhem wrote:I watched a show the other day where he had an entire audience of black conservatives. The all spoke of how they where looked down upon by other blacks because they where looked at as sellouts. It was an eye opening show.

And the point of this was? There are gay republicans, pro-life democrats, orthodox christian liberals, and anti-war conservatives, but because they exist does not mean they represent the majority or ideas of a political party or movement (or are even welcomed by the majority).

Mayhem wrote:Anyway, I find the media far less bias on Fox. I am not an ideolog. I do not follow what any one party says just because they say it. I make up my own mind. Fox allows me to do that because I actually hear both sides...

Do you follow any other news sources?

The U.S. government does control the news media to a certain extent, and there is a great deal of vested interest in that incestuous relationship. The pentagon spends billions of dollar a year on TV propaganda, and pays big dollar to insert political messages in television programs. It is no co-incidence that Jack Bauer routinely tortures people to extract information.

Ahhh gotta love it, in fact they control the media to such an extent they can even admit things and nothing is ever said about it...as in old Rummy admitting flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania.



Or tricky Dicky lying straight faced, and again no one calls him out. I mean you can lie to the media and then deny and lie some more, of course they control it.

They admitted the government 'lost' trillions of dollars and Dyncorp runs child kidnapping rings. No-one goes to jail. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eootfzAhAoU - laaa-dee-dahh, business as usual.