<p>“I don’t think Stewart or Colbert are liberal. Criticizing Bush and pointing out his (criminal) incompetence doesn’t make someone liberal.”</p>
<p>I’m not seeking “liberals”. The difference between the so-called “liberals” (who are virtually all to the right of where the center was in 1970) and so-called “conservatives” is incredibly small in the global scheme of things.</p>
<p>“#1 in the minor league, P2N. The question is, is FNC even playing at the triple-A level? And if so, are they ready to be called up to “the show?” All I see is a pull hitter who can’t handle major league pitching.”</p>
<p>Obviously, ratings are not a good way to evaluate the quality of news. However, to assert that NBC/ABC/CBS are the major league - based on ratings - is nonsense. I watch their nightly news and it is not even close to CNN or Fox with respect to political/governemt news. First, the amount of time that they devote to it is minimal - much of their half hour is consumed with medical/consumer/human interest stories. Secondly, any network that thinks good news coverage includes anecdotal interviews of regular people about their views on anything can’t be taken seriously as a news source.</p>
<p>ewwwwwwwwwwwwwww</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Quote of the thread. And I’m sure Sean Hannity is the only “conservative” on Fox huh? The rest just must be indies :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Your incoherent babbling draws pity from my corner. The vast left wing conspiracy preys on the weak-minded.
Peace out.</p>
<p>Fox News is America’s best news channel</p>
<p>Quote of the thread # 2</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought fear-inducing attacks prey on the weak minded?</p>
<p>See? Even the U.S. Government agrees. :D</p>
<p>An example of how excruciatingly abysmal fox news is at reporting politics:</p>
<p>“Coming next, drug addicted pregnant women no longer have anything to fear from the authorities thanks to the Supreme Court. Both sides on this in a moment.”–Bill O’Reilly</p>
<p>[The</a> Most Biased Name in News](<a href=“FAIR - FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.”>FAIR - FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.)</p>
<p>The real issue is that FNC is probably closer to the ideal (think [Edward</a> R.Murrow](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murrow]Edward”>Murrow - Wikipedia) and Uncle [Walter</a> Cronkite’s](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronkite]Walter”>Cronkite - Wikipedia) generation) than present day competitors.</p>
<p>Laxattack09, </p>
<p>Can you honestly point out any other commentator on MSNBC who includes his political views in his “reporting” as Fox news commentators do? Chris Matthews may be liberal, but it doesn’t affect his reporting. Tim Russert may be liberal, but he doesn’t bring it into his reporting. Dan Abrams may be liberal (yeah right), but it’s not brought into his reporting either. There’s a big difference between having a personal bias and changing every aspect of your program to lie not just for a certain portion of the political spectrum, but for the Bush administration. </p>
<p>(I use the masculine pronoun because unfortunately, neither program includes strong women commentators.)</p>
<p>Including liberals in your program who get shut down midway through every comment does not make a program “fair and balanced.”</p>
<p>As for the “weak-minded” personal attack, I have a tough time accepting such a comment from someone who uses such terms as “left-wing conspiracy.” I think you’ve just disqualified yourself from any conversation, intelligent or not, as you’ve outed yourself as a drone of radio talk shows and Bill O’Reilly.</p>
<p>“Can you honestly point out any other commentator on MSNBC who includes his political views in his “reporting” as Fox news commentators do? Chris Matthews may be liberal, but it doesn’t affect his reporting”</p>
<p>Chris Matthews isn’s a reporter, he’s a commentator. Remember the tingle in his leg? David Shuster is his reporter and has bee caught out getting things wrong. I’ve watched Matthews for years (I actually like the Sunday program better than Hardball, but that’s just me) and actually do like him, but he is a democratic commentator. If he runs for the Senate it will be as a democrat. And I think that’s just fine. Who, specifically, bothers you at Fox? Except for O’Reilly and Hannity, who don’t call themselves reporters but commentators also, I can’t think of anyone who would be politically (as opposed to personally) bothersome. Would you let me know who you’re thinking of?
Now, if you want to talk about the clone-like blonde chicks, I could give you a few words.</p>
<p>Fundingfather - of course I agree with you in principle. But I’d go a step further and say that no TV news show is worth a warm pitcher of spit when it comes to actually understanding national or international issues. But at least the broadcast network news stations don’t actively “disinform” people as Fox does. As Hippocrates said: " First, do no harm." Fox News fails that test. It’s viewers are actually more ignorant after watching than they would be if they didn’t. </p>
<p>And after all, P2N was crowing about ratings, so if that’s your metric it should be put in perspective.</p>
<p>Fox is the only news agency not far enough into its own colon to see the real world. First, they are not afraid to say that America under the Bush administration is not a catastrophe. They talk about good news in Iraq (<strong>gasp</strong> how dare they?!). When Mike Murphy earned (don’t ever say “won”) the medal of honor for his bravery beyond the call of duty in Afghanistan (maybe read “Lone Survivor”) only FoxNews covered it. MSNBC and CNN failed to honor the courage of this country’s protectors. I am not even a real conservative, yet I can see the obvious liberal agenda in many other media sources.
There is a difference between a journalist and a political pundit. One presents the facts in an unbiased manner. The latter adds opinion and often comedic value. Today’s news is so bent on ratings and profit (unlike the news of old) that it no longer consists of journalistic merit. If you want journalism, pick up a newspaper (just not the post or times… journal perhaps?). FoxNews helps Americans keep some respect for their honorable and sacrificing country.</p>
<p>AMB2005, I use the left-wing conspiracy comment only because i love to remind people of the equally ridiculous “right wing conspiracy.”</p>
<p>and ballgame.</p>
<p>It’s not a coincidence that the democratic candidates avoid interviews on Fox News. They want to avoid any tough questions that are unscripted. It does the voters an injustice in properly evaluating future POTUS . Are we the voters best served by Chris Mattews and his ilk by softball questions with little or no in depth follow up questions ? No matter what the party affiliation, I desire more jounalistic integrity and less leg tingling!</p>
<p>ExplorerCY, you pinpointed the main problem with Fox news: they rhetorically use such things as “honor” and “patriotism” to mask reality. Fox news blindly tells us to love our country and that we can’t do any wrong. They present this mythical world about America that simply doesn’t exist. Their commentators don’t just act this way; that is how they approach news. This isn’t news, it’s PROPAGANDA. </p>
<p>Fox news itself isn’t honorable or good-it’s part of the larger problem in the media after 9/11 that is responsible for us not seeing Bush for what he really is, and for allowing our country to disregard the constitution, go and stay in Iraq, etc. </p>
<p>Criticizing your country is the most patriotic thing you can do. The moment you stop looking at your nation’s actions critically, you’re doing it a disservice. Because of the way Fox news approaches news, they’re part of the problem. Criticizing the war is not criticizing the troops. You can support the troops by giving them the benefits they earned, by giving them proper equipment, education, and HEALTH CARE, and pulling them out of the war NOW. You don’t support the troops by sitting on your couch waving a flag. </p>
<p>Yes, the Bush administration was a disaster, and to not point that out in news coverage is dangerous. You also have the definition of commentators and reporters wrong: a reporter is always biased. However, with a reporter you can usually discern the facts behind their biases, and it is up to the viewer to pick these facts out. A commentator in the Fox news vein is a propagandist. Fox news is not part of the “right-wing conspiracy.” It’s way out there in its own world.</p>
<p>When you get right down to it, it depends on whose prism your looking through when discerning the true reality that resides before us. If I told my W that it’s not you honey, it’s your cooking or your housework its just not good enough or your a terrible lay but I really do support you honest! I don’t have to tell you what her response would be! While I believe we have the right to criticize the war, it’s support for the mission that is lacking! As for President Bush, he was playing Texas Hold’em with Saddam Hussein and called his all-in bluff w/ regards to WMD’s. He’s lost and won a few hands since but he realizes it would be stupid to fold now with so many chips in the pot!</p>
<p>If I were an advertiser I’d love those ratings. :)</p>
<p>Really, I don’t care that much about FNC except to poke fun at all my liberal buddies who allow it to get under their skin. ;)</p>
<p>I mean - can you believe this thread is now 3 pages?</p>
<p>
TerpDad, there are professional poker players who make a living off of guys who think like that. Dumb poker strategy; worse military strategy. </p>
<p>Waist deep in the Big Muddy…</p>