Fox News: Fair & Balanced? Investigating Claims of Corruption

[Char. Limit]

So, Vanadium, do you consider the question "Was Obama born in the US" a trick question?

 

[Alfi]

Illegally, while technically true, is... really a loaded word. Entering this country is not really that illegal, in fact, it's about as illegal as a traffic ticket, in fact, a lot of people would consider it a lot less illegal than a traffic ticket.

Ummmm ... a traffic ticket is an accusation that you have broken a traffic law.
You can defend yourself from the issued ticket if you wish.

I disagree that 'Illegally' is a loaded word when applied to anyone that is in my country without proper procedure and documentation.

 

[Ryumast3r]

That seems to me to indicate that Fox News watchers handle trick questions poorly. Yes, the 1st auto bailout was under President Bush. But President Obama's was five times larger and involved nationalizing GM. We know now that the health reform law will increase the deficit, and that the CBO numbers came from having ten years of taxes and six years of benefits. "They didn't get the wrong answer they were supposed to get" is a unique argument. My income tax rates have gone up - although the federal piece has gone down. Climate change has become indelibly linked with man-made climate change. And finally, the argument that the stimulus legislation caused less job loss than there would have been without it may well be true, but it is certainly unprovable - and asking people to hold one side of an unprovable proposition lest they be labeled "stupid" seems profoundly unfair to me.

Those aren't really trick questions. Who started bailing out auto companies? It was before Obama went into office, that is not a trick question, it's not "who bailed out the auto companies" it was "who started it" - who did the first one

Like I said, the healthcare one was poorly worded and a bad question in general, as was the economy one, yes, but not really a trick.

Climate Change said specifically: "Do you think that MOST SCIENTISTS believe that climate change is occurring, not occurring, or views are evenly divided?

It is purely fact that scientists believe it's occurring. It's only become linked with man-made BECAUSE of Fox News and probably even MSNBC. That's not a trick question, that's totally fair and shows how misinformed people are when they believe that climate change = man made.

Also, they said that the stimulus LOST jobs, which is bad, since even the lowest estimates I've seen are that it directly saved/created a million jobs.

Also, the other questions that aren't mentioned:

"63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts" -- It totally did. Fact.

And my personal favorite: "63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)"

^That is misinformed. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Edit: In fact, here is his long-form (in .PDF) in case anybody here has any doubts: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

 

[Ryumast3r]

Ummmm ... a traffic ticket is an accusation that you have broken a traffic law.
You can defend yourself from the issued ticket if you wish.

I disagree that 'Illegally' is a loaded word when applied to anyone that is in my country without proper procedure and documentation.

It is an accusation that you've broken a law, but my point is, there's a punishment for a traffic ticket. There really isn't even a punishment for coming here "illegally." As I said, until state's recently passed legislation, you couldn't even really detain them. You could only send them back, at the taxpayer's expense.

 

[Perspicacity]

Illegally, while technically true, is... really a loaded word. Entering this country is not really that illegal, in fact, it's about as illegal as a traffic ticket, in fact, a lot of people would consider it a lot less illegal than a traffic ticket. You couldn't even fine people for coming over illegally until recently because of arizona/couple other states. The only "punishment" for entering our country illegally was deportation, which doesn't really waste their money, it wastes ours.



Defend "Marxist propaganda." You are really pushing it there since really hardly any of it reaches any level close to Marxism. Socialism =/= Communism.

That post was pretty sensational, and a fine piece of propaganda. What MSNBC, CNN, etc do is rhetoric, I would agree. Seeing as rhetoric is any argument defending any point of view, they do spew out a lot of it, as does Fox.

In my personal opinion, MSNBC is a pretty solid bias left, however Fox news is super-biased right.

A nice poll was done in late 2010 showing just how misinformed people who watch Fox are:

"In eight of the nine questions below, Fox News placed first in the percentage of those who were misinformed (they placed second in the question on TARP). That’s a pretty high batting average for journalistic fraud. Here is a list of what Fox News viewers believe that just aint so:

91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs (the worst it did was have little effect, though many say it had a positive effect)
72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit (at the time, CBO estimates were saying it wouldn't)
72 percent believe the economy is getting worse (poorly worded question, though the GDP was picking up at the time, job losses were still occurring)
60 percent believe climate change is not occurring (Scientists say it's occurring, even if it's not man made. That is fact)
49 percent believe income taxes have gone up
63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts
56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout (Hello dubyah)
38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP (50-50 split)
63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear) (and btw, he was)"

Those are pretty big issues to be misinformed on, especially Climate Change, and income taxes. IMO, Fox has some explaining to do.

My point with this is that you cannot claim that MSNBC, CNN, etc are spreading "Marxist Propaganda" and at the same time claim that Fox News is about as close to perfect as it can get. IMO, if MSNBC is spreading "Marxist Propaganda" then Fox News is spreading "Nazi Propaganda."

Are you kidding me? I won't bother pointing out what kind of garbage those questions are, as Vanadium did that quite nicely, and would like to reiterate how absurd it is to claim someone answered a question incorrectly because economists disagreed with them, when facts have obviously shown otherwise.

Also, the Nazis were socialists. Being racist doesn't turn a socialist into a conservative, as the left-wingers in America like to claim. The Nazis were entirely a left-wing movement that paced German socialism above international worker solidarity. So how about we let MSNBC have both the Marxist and Nazi propaganda label?

 

[Char. Limit]

Are you kidding me? I won't bother pointing out what kind of garbage those questions are, as Vanadium did that quite nicely, and would like to reiterate how absurd it is to claim someone answered a question incorrectly because economists disagreed with them, when facts have obviously shown otherwise.

Again, is "Is Obama born in the US?" a garbage question? Sounds like a reasonable question to me.

Also, the Nazis were socialists. Being racist doesn't turn a socialist into a conservative, as the left-wingers in America like to claim. The Nazis were entirely a left-wing movement that paced German socialism above international worker solidarity. So how about we let MSNBC have both the Marxist and Nazi propaganda label?

Nope. Wrong. As quoted from Wikipedia (which, unlike YOU, cites its sources), "Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics."

Care to try again?

 

[Ryumast3r]

Are you kidding me? I won't bother pointing out what kind of garbage those questions are, as Vanadium did that quite nicely, and would like to reiterate how absurd it is to claim someone answered a question incorrectly because economists disagreed with them, when facts have obviously shown otherwise.

Not just economists disagreed, scientists and his long-form birth certificate would disagree as well. Those questions were not just about economics. If you had cared to read all of them you would've realized that.

Also, the Nazis were socialists. Being racist doesn't turn a socialist into a conservative, as the left-wingers in America like to claim. The Nazis were entirely a left-wing movement that paced German socialism above international worker solidarity. So how about we let MSNBC have both the Marxist and Nazi propaganda label?

From wikipedia:

"...It was a unique variety of fascism that incorporated biological racism and antisemitism.[10] Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.[11]"

One core thing about Nazi-Fascism that reminds me of Fox is the fact that it relies heavily on Nationalism and Patriotism (no illegals, we are the best in the world because we're american, etc etc).

Also: Left and Right do not just mean economics, they can mean social issues or morality as well.

Edit: haha, Char and I had the same idea. :P

 

[WhoWee]

So, Vanadium, do you consider the question "Was Obama born in the US" a trick question?

Actually, the trick question is where did he grow up? If you said Chicago - you MIGHT be listening to the left wing news and if you said Indonesia - (yes) you probably listen to FOX - IMO.

 

[WhoWee]

Illegally, while technically true, is... really a loaded word. Entering this country is not really that illegal, in fact, it's about as illegal as a traffic ticket, in fact, a lot of people would consider it a lot less illegal than a traffic ticket.

my bold

IMO - that is a beautiful rationalization - really.

 

[drankin]

So, just because there are laws against entering our country illegally doesn't mean one is entering illegally? Or is there a degree of illegality that is required in order to be considered illegal? Amazing the amount of text in this thread that explains something illegal, not illegal, yet not legal, but shouldn't be called illegal...

 

[Perspicacity]

Not just economists disagreed, scientists and his long-form birth certificate would disagree as well. Those questions were not just about economics. If you had cared to read all of them you would've realized that.



From wikipedia:

"...It was a unique variety of fascism that incorporated biological racism and antisemitism.[10] Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.[11]"

One core thing about Nazi-Fascism that reminds me of Fox is the fact that it relies heavily on Nationalism and Patriotism (no illegals, we are the best in the world because we're american, etc etc).

Also: Left and Right do not just mean economics, they can mean social issues or morality as well.

Edit: haha, Char and I had the same idea. :P

Hitler as quoted in the very same wiki article:

I want everyone to keep what he has earned, subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State ... The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners.

That is EXACTLY socialism. Making a statement about respecting property rights does not change the fact that they did not respect property rights. Notice how the wiki article bears no "Relation to Socialism" section, despite the fact that they called themselves National Socialists and espoused an obvious socialistic view point, as again can be read in the artile you linked. The Nazis were nothing more than socialists who also espoused racism and nationalism—any trait they shared with fascism can just as easily be explained by their link to socialism.

Basically, hating non-aryans does not make them right-wing. THe russians were just as racist. Being authoritarian does not make them right-wing. Fidel Castro was not right-wing. Hating homosexuals does not make you right-wing, unless you want to lay Che Guevara at the feet of the right.

The Nazi's had nothing to do with anything that can currently be labeled as right-wing in American politics today, whether you choose to define that as classical liberalism or constitutional traditionalism. They most certainly did not espouse limited government or economic freedom in any way, and their moral views were shared by both left-wing and right-wing governments of the time.

As for the birther question, again you fail to mention that the question as listed wasn't "Was Obama born in the U.S.A.?" It was "Was Obama born in the U.S.A.(Or is it unclear)?" That is a significant difference, especially since FOX news never took the position that Obama was foreign-born. I've heard Fox News pundits repeatedly say that he was in fact born in Hawaii.

 

[Ryumast3r]

The Nazi's had nothing to do with anything that can currently be labeled as right-wing in American politics today, whether you choose to define that as classical liberalism or constitutional traditionalism. They most certainly did not espouse limited government or economic freedom in any way, and their moral views were shared by both left-wing and right-wing governments of the time.

Once again, there are two axes, there's economic left-right, and there's social left-right.

Economic left: Collectivism (either state-imposed, or individually volunteered)
Economic right: Individualism (read: Neo-liberalism/Libertarianism

Social left: Anarchism
Social right: Authoritarianism

Hitler is what is seen as about as authoritarian as it gets, read: right-wing socially. His economic policies were about middle of the road when you look at Communism vs Neo-Liberalism on the economic scale, but yes, this is called Socialism.

As for the birther question, again you fail to mention that the question as listed wasn't "Was Obama born in the U.S.A.?" It was "Was Obama born in the U.S.A.(Or is it unclear)?" That is a significant difference, especially since FOX news never took the position that Obama was foreign-born. I've heard Fox News pundits repeatedly say that he was in fact born in Hawaii.

Not really all that much of a significant difference, and if you read my first post I included the "(or is it unclear)" part of it, I just left it out for sake of simplicity in my other posts.

Also, it's STILL not a trick question since, if even Fox was saying that he was born in Hawaii then it IS 100% CLEAR that he was an american citizen. This isn't rocket science, and the fact that people who primarily watched Fox scored what... 93% wrong? That speaks for itself in my opinion.

 

[Al68]

Wrong. As quoted from Wikipedia (which, unlike YOU, cites its sources), "Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.[/b

That's just a simple matter of the term "right" being used differently. The words "far right" and ""right-wing extremist" are often used today to refer to economic libertarianism.

Yes, Nazism was considered far right, but we don't typically use the word "right" to mean that today, unless it's used in a "bait and switch" tactic.

 

[Al68]

Once again, there are two axes, there's economic left-right, and there's social left-right.

Economic left: Collectivism (either state-imposed, or individually volunteered)
Economic right: Individualism (read: Neo-liberalism/Libertarianism

Social left: Anarchism
Social right: Authoritarianism

That first part is pretty universally true, but that second part is only partially true the way "right" and "left" are used today. For example, with gun control issues, authoritarianism is considered left wing, and libertarianism is considered right wing.

It would seen that the biggest connection between social authoritarianism and today's use of the term "right-wing" is with the abortion issue, but that seems more like an exception to the general rule, rather than the rule itself.

Of course maybe that just because I personally find it so odd that so many people who tend to be mostly libertarian are often authoritarian on that issue while many who tend to be more authoritarian are often libertarian on that issue.

You are really pushing it there since really hardly any of it reaches any level close to Marxism. Socialism =/= Communism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx" like the U.S.

 

[WhoWee]

Let's cut the crap about Extreme Left Communist compared with Extreme Right Nazi nonsense - the results are in (yet again): (my bold and left-leaning Huffington is the source
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...-30_n_869861.html#s285866&title=1_The_OReilly

Most months, the cable news ratings show little fluctuation. Fox News is always dominant, and the rest of the pack shuffles around a bit. In May, though, there were dramatic jumps in many shows' ratings. (Fox News, however, was still dominant, taking the top 12 shows of the month. Some things never, ever change.)

Should we conclude the US clearly leans Right - or should we conclude the Left, the Right, and possibly the Center depend on FOX for their news?

 

[Office_Shredder]

Should we conclude the US clearly leans Right - or should we conclude the Left, the Right, and possibly the Center depend on FOX for their news?

Cable news ratings. Why can't we conclude that a lot of people watch basic TV for their news?

 

[WhoWee]

Cable news ratings. Why can't we conclude that a lot of people watch basic TV for their news?

What fun would that be?

 

[Ryumast3r]

Let's cut the crap about Extreme Left Communist compared with Extreme Right Nazi nonsense - the results are in (yet again): (my bold and left-leaning Huffington is the source
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...-30_n_869861.html#s285866&title=1_The_OReilly

Most months, the cable news ratings show little fluctuation. Fox News is always dominant, and the rest of the pack shuffles around a bit. In May, though, there were dramatic jumps in many shows' ratings. (Fox News, however, was still dominant, taking the top 12 shows of the month. Some things never, ever change.)

Should we conclude the US clearly leans Right - or should we conclude the Left, the Right, and possibly the Center depend on FOX for their news?

Ratings =/= truthfulness, nor do they show a lack of bias.

By this study we can only conclude that more people watch Fox than other stations, be it for news, or for entertainment purposes.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Those aren't really trick questions. Who started bailing out auto companies? It was before Obama went into office, that is not a trick question, it's not "who bailed out the auto companies" it was "who started it" - who did the first one

Which is why it's a trick question. The correct answer is "Jimmy Carter".

 

[mege]

Once again, there are two axes, there's economic left-right, and there's social left-right.

Economic left: Collectivism (either state-imposed, or individually volunteered)
Economic right: Individualism (read: Neo-liberalism/Libertarianism

Social left: Anarchism
Social right: Authoritarianism

Telling a company (or school) they have to fit a particular income distribution or race-distribution is anarchism? What am I missing there?

Point being that comparing political values cross-culturally is impossible. The politics in the US are far beyond being hardline right/left as the political parties have only tendencies towards those sides. Just because Republicans lean to the right, does not mean that they're the same political identity as every other right-leaning party in history. The same goes with the Democratic party, their left leaning policies are far from their roots in the Confederacy now.

In the end, the political divide in the US is really based on whom you trust (which generally aligns with the economic split described above). The American right generally distrusts the government to manage their affairs (libertarians), while the American left generally trusts the government to manage their affairs (and distrusts individuals - collectivists). There are some exceptions to the rule which are governed by (IMO) non-rational forces in each party. The left has it's pet in the Feminist movement which introduced libertarian principles (but is perverted by trying to force those ideals) and the right has it's pet in the conservative religious which introduces some orthodoxy (which again is perverted by trying to force those ideals). If you take away the morality issues that are created by the Feminist-Church divide, then the parties are much 'clearer' in their collectivist and libertarian ways. Pre-Reagan Republicans and Democrats (President GHW Bush was the first neo-con imo) were much simpler along this divide. The policies of the 60s displayed that libertarian vs collectivist mentality very specifically: Republicans were pushing the civil rights act while the Democrats were expanding new deal policies and created medicare (and a top end 90% income tax...). Sure, there are outliers like Sen. McCarthy; many forget that his actions had bi-partisian support - he just happened to be a Republican and so the current mindset is to blame the party for the witch hunt he championed. The Vietnam War was a Democratic-party led effort: it took the Republican President Nixon to get us out of Vietnam. Point being: political parties have many points of flux. Intrinsically: Republicans aren't warmongers and Democrats aren't freedom-mongers. Take away the outliers and the core remains: collectivists vs libertarians (or, back to my first statement - who do you trust?).

While I don't think any collectivists would actually do so, I highly suggest reading Ann Coulter's book in which she talks about this type of divide and how there is hypocracy in the American left trying to claim 'civil rights' and clarity of purpose:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godless:_The_Church_of_Liberalism" . I don't see eye to eye with Coulter on her religiousity (I self-identify with American conservatives: my views are libertarian based, but I could care less about the 'morality issues'), but she does speak plainly about some flaws in the common public view of politics.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Which is why it's a trick question. The correct answer is "Jimmy Carter".

At this point I think you're pulling at straws. Explain the birth certificate issue now. How are they that misinformed?

 

[mege]

Also, it's STILL not a trick question since, if even Fox was saying that he was born in Hawaii then it IS 100% CLEAR that he was an american citizen. This isn't rocket science, and the fact that people who primarily watched Fox scored what... 93% wrong? That speaks for itself in my opinion.

At this point I think you're pulling at straws. Explain the birth certificate issue now. How are they that misinformed?

What's the causality? You said yourself that Fox News was saying the President was born in Hawaii, so if they are saying that then why would the viewership think something else? What lie did Fox News tell to make people believe that? This is a poor example anyhow because IMO the birth certificate issue was mishandled by the President from the start. Fox News does tend to be a little more critical of government in general, perhaps the viewship is drawn to that criticality that CNN and MSNBC does not offer?*

While I don't fall into the conspiracy theory camp in regards to President Obama's birth place (however, why haven't we seen his school records and papers?), I do caution against treating evidence as fact. Evidence is just that - evidence. It requires opinion, interpretation, and cynicism to evaluate. Treating evidence as fact is not a good idea, esspecially in journalism. Just http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy" when you treat evidence as fact.

*Further on the comparision - watch Rachel Maddow one night, then watch Glenn Beck. Keep track of the sources cited for each show. Glenn Beck's TV show will generally tripple Maddow in external source cited (I did this with a left-leaning friend of mine for a few days to prove a point). I do realize that http://xkcd.com/906/" , but you can still validate what is being said and go on to do more thinking for yourself instead of just nodding to whatever the pundit is saying. If we are going to have opinionated news sources, I'd rather them be critical of what they see and hear instead of just pandering to the current populism (which in the last decade has been a leftist slant).

 

[Vanadium 50]

I never said anything about a birth certificate. I will point out that "the other half isn't" is not, in my mind, a good defense to "half of the questions are trick questions".

And why is Jimmy Carter a worse answer than George Bush?

 

[hillzagold]

Why? What does that have to do with your comment about Fox attacking media outlets? Please explain the relevance of that link. Is English your native language? I'm not sure you understand what the word "attack" means. This is really weird. Did you forget what you were claiming/arguing about? Did you misspeak and are now trying to cover it with misdirection? Please explain the relevance of that link.

English may be your native language, but you're still terrible at it. You claim that MSNBC attacks Fox, I claim that Fox attacks leftist media, as well as other things. These things range from Obama to immigrants to supreme court justices, to a hundred other things. This makes them more biased than MSNBC, who you claim only attacks Fox.

Actually, my photograph manipulation link was about a New York Times reporter, which is a media outlet. Even if I meant what you thought, I'd have one source to prove myself correct.

No, I haven't gone beyond the first link. Based on how irrelevant the first link was, I didn't see any reason to go on to the second. Do the other links have any more relevance to your comment about Fox attacking other media outlets? I want an explanation as to what your point is: I won't fall for misdirection games.

The first link was relevant because Fox chose a synonym with negative connotations. Do you know what connotations are? They are the meaning words have beyond what a dictionary says they have. "Illegal" has connotations. Jaywalkers, litterers, people who don't scoop up after their pets, all people doing illegal things, but never referred to with the blanket term of "illegals."

But even if my first link was irrelevant, that you ignore every other one shows that you have all the debating skill of a 2nd grader. Especially ignoring the one that I said was my favorite. Take comfort that you "won't fall for misdirection games," if you really think you sound better.

P.S. Links to uncut video segments with accurate context provided? Is that what passes for a misdirection game now?
P.P.S. I think it's past time someone provided an example of MSNBC being overtly biased.

 

[mege]

English may be your native language, but you're still terrible at it. You claim that MSNBC attacks Fox, I claim that Fox attacks leftist media, as well as other things. These things range from Obama to immigrants to supreme court justices, to a hundred other things. This makes them more biased than MSNBC, who you claim only attacks Fox.

Actually, my photograph manipulation link was about a New York Times reporter, which is a media outlet. Even if I meant what you thought, I'd have one source to prove myself correct.

The first link was relevant because Fox chose a synonym with negative connotations. Do you know what connotations are? They are the meaning words have beyond what a dictionary says they have. "Illegal" has connotations. Jaywalkers, litterers, people who don't scoop up after their pets, all people doing illegal things, but never referred to with the blanket term of "illegals."

"Lean forward" as a company slogan is unbiased? Matthews and Maddow are unbiased?

Read the headlines on MSNBC's website sometime (mainly in the http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/ns/politics/" . Which of those adjectives are perjorative and which are not? These are articles, right now, that are side by side on the MSNBC Politics site.

Would you rather be with someone that is defending, protecting, making vows and meeting with people or would you rather be with someone whom is defiant, attacking, infighting and is skeptical? Unless you're just being contrarian, I feel the answer is clear.

I had a much harder time doing the same thing on Fox News' website - while they cover political issues (yes, through a non-leftist lens) they don't make the partisian nature the focus. Searching the 'Politics' page even on FoxNews.com came up with a reference each to Republicans and Democrats. On MSNBC's politics page - it was GOP this and Dems that. Here are the FoxNews.com headlines that referenced parties: "Democrats Push for Warren to Lead Consumer Agency" and "Republicans Ready for Battle Against White House Over Commerce Secretary". Clearly these headlines are indicating offensive and defensive political positions, but in a non negative way. That said, I do understand that Fox News does tend to lean towards the right a little bit, it's just unfortunate that there is a common conception that they are doing it recklessly so, when it's not the case (see MSNBC's slant above).

 

[flyingpig]

Is this a joke? Do you honestly believe anything those idiot reporters report?

 

[WhoWee]

Is this a joke? Do you honestly believe anything those idiot reporters report?

Per the last post, are you referring to MSNBC or FOX reporters - or both?

 

[Ryumast3r]

Both.I make it a point to watch MSNBC, Fox, CNN, BBC, read some Reuters, some huffington post, NYtimes, LAtimes, whatever local newspapers I can get a hold of, and then go on to forums and read what other people are thinking of the subjects purely because they all have a bias.

To say Fox news is unbiased, or not corrupt is false. They are biased, just like every other news organization. How do you get rid of the bias? Either watch none and read none, or read/watch as many as you can.

 

[Ryumast3r]

What's the causality? You said yourself that Fox News was saying the President was born in Hawaii, so if they are saying that then why would the viewership think something else? What lie did Fox News tell to make people believe that? This is a poor example anyhow because IMO the birth certificate issue was mishandled by the President from the start. Fox News does tend to be a little more critical of government in general, perhaps the viewship is drawn to that criticality that CNN and MSNBC does not offer?*

Fox news itself might have, but that doesn't mean Glenn Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, or other famous GOP Bigwigs weren't questioning it (Trump, etc).

While I don't fall into the conspiracy theory camp in regards to President Obama's birth place (however, why haven't we seen his school records and papers?), I do caution against treating evidence as fact. Evidence is just that - evidence. It requires opinion, interpretation, and cynicism to evaluate. Treating evidence as fact is not a good idea, esspecially in journalism. Just http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy" when you treat evidence as fact.

I was not treating evidence as fact, I was treating fact as fact. He *was* born in Hawaii. Fact.

*Further on the comparision - watch Rachel Maddow one night, then watch Glenn Beck. Keep track of the sources cited for each show. Glenn Beck's TV show will generally tripple Maddow in external source cited (I did this with a left-leaning friend of mine for a few days to prove a point). I do realize that http://xkcd.com/906/" , but you can still validate what is being said and go on to do more thinking for yourself instead of just nodding to whatever the pundit is saying. If we are going to have opinionated news sources, I'd rather them be critical of what they see and hear instead of just pandering to the current populism (which in the last decade has been a leftist slant).

I don't watch Maddow, but ok. Glenn Beck may have sources, but that man, every time I personally watched him, was spouting something with insane links that weren't really links, making jokes into factual opinions, and basically spreading things that weren't true. He'll start off with something true, make a bad assumption, and come up with a bad assumption. Of course, this isn't always true, but that's the pattern I've seen in a grand majority of shows of his that I've seen.

I never said anything about a birth certificate. I will point out that "the other half isn't" is not, in my mind, a good defense to "half of the questions are trick questions".

And why is Jimmy Carter a worse answer than George Bush?

Ok, so any time I'm asked a question on something that is clearly about recent events, I'm going to go as far back in history as I can just to foul up the answering and prove that their question is a trick question.

Also, it's less than half, and I'm not talking about the poorly worded questions, I threw those out on the basis that they were poorly worded.

 

[Perspicacity]

Fox news itself might have, but that doesn't mean Glenn Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, or other famous GOP Bigwigs weren't questioning it (Trump, etc).

None of those pundits ever claimed Obama was born in Kenya. They of course covered the birther story, but they have each said that Obama was born in Hawaii. Search for "Fox News Pundit Birther" and you'll get a whole bunch of stories about how Fox News wasn't sufficiently mean to Donald Trump, and nothing more.

 

[mege]

None of those pundits ever claimed Obama was born in Kenya. They of course covered the birther story, but they have each said that Obama was born in Hawaii. Search for "Fox News Pundit Birther" and you'll get a whole bunch of stories about how Fox News wasn't sufficiently mean to Donald Trump, and nothing more.

This. Hannity and Beck both very specifically thought the birther issue was actually a lot of BS and said so, a lot. They're critical of President Obama hasn't released college records and papers, but the birther issue was too much.

 

[WhoWee]

This. Hannity and Beck both very specifically thought the birther issue was actually a lot of BS and said so, a lot. They're critical of President Obama hasn't released college records and papers, but the birther issue was too much.

Neither Hannity nor Beck were focused on the birth certificate. However, they've consistently questioned why the President wasn't fully vetted by the mainstream media - especially with regards to people close to the President.

 

[mege]

Both.


I make it a point to watch MSNBC, Fox, CNN, BBC, read some Reuters, some huffington post, NYtimes, LAtimes, whatever local newspapers I can get a hold of, and then go on to forums and read what other people are thinking of the subjects purely because they all have a bias.

To say Fox news is unbiased, or not corrupt is false. They are biased, just like every other news organization. How do you get rid of the bias? Either watch none and read none, or read/watch as many as you can.

I don't think there is a total lack of bias, but I feel that the bias of the news that Fox News reports is far less skewed than other news sources (see my MSNBC politics comparison above). I feel the extremist views are overblown (and people use the pundits as 'proof' when there is more to Fox News than just Hannity and Beck).

Personally, I try to catch the BBC International newscasts as much as possible for current events. I do watch Fox News once in a while for Beck and Fox Business a bit for John Stossel. While they both do an overview of topics in current events, Beck's show is more of a multimedia magazine and needs to be treated as such. I'd also remind you that Beck is very critical of the Neo-con movement, and really 'got his stripes' critiquing President Bush (this esspecially when Savage and Rush skirted the issue of critiquing President Bush, esspecially the stimulus-type policies in his 2nd term).

 

[russ_watters]

English may be your native language, but you're still terrible at it.
You claim that MSNBC attacks Fox, I claim that Fox attacks leftist media, as well as other things.

Ok...so you're saying English is not your native language? I didn't ask that to be mean, I asked because you're just not making any sense. That could explain a lot about this misunderstanding.

These things range from Obama to immigrants to supreme court justices, to a hundred other things. This makes them more biased than MSNBC, who you claim only attacks Fox.

What "other things"? Are you saying Fox is "attacking" immigrants with biased use of the word "illegal"? That would explain a whole lot about what you're trying to say. So when you said this:

Do they only attack Fox? Because Fox does not only attack MSNBC, and Fox does not only attack other media sources.

...what you meant was that Fox doesn't just attack media outlets, they attack issues (and the people behind them)? If that's all you've been trying to say, then you completely missed my point in post #265. My point was that MSNBC tried to be the anti-Fox and used direct attacks against Fox to foster that image. Calling biased reporting "attacks" is very odd word usage and doesn't have anything to do with any of that.

And even if you apply it to people (Fox attacks Obama, MSNBC attacks Palin), it still has nothing at all to do with my post #265.

The first link was relevant because Fox chose a synonym with negative connotations.

Ok, understood: you missed my point and misused/misunderstood the use of the word "attack". If you want to go back and correct it, fine, but you've confirmed for me that none of your other links were relevant and there is no need for me to read further. You don't need to prove Fox is biased: no one is arguing that they aren't! That has nothing to do with what I was discussing.

P.P.S. I think it's past time someone provided an example of MSNBC being overtly biased.

Wow, really? So you really do think MSNBC isn't very biased?! That's why I asked before!

Since we like photoshop so much:

On November 13, 2009, in the days leading up to the release of 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin's book "Going Rogue", MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan used photoshopped pictures of Palin on the channel's Morning Meeting program. Ratigan apologized a few days later stating, "I want to apologize to Governor Palin and all of our viewers. On Friday, in a very misguided attempt to have some fun in advance of Sarah Palin’s upcoming book Going Rogue, our staff mistakenly used some clearly photoshopped images of Ms. Palin without any acknowledgment."[64]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC#Assertions_of_liberal_bias

That's from the MSNBC Wiki page, the section on MSNBC's liberal bias.

Now, there may also be an internal struggle with MSNBC regarding their bias, for example they had Olberman and Matthews anchoring their election coverage (also in the wiki):

During the 2008 Presidential election, MSNBC's coverage was anchored by Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and David Gregory. The three were widely viewed as the face of the channel's political coverage.[29] During the first three months of the presidential campaign, MSNBC's ratings grew by 158 percent.[30] However, during the election coverage, anchors Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews were criticized for expressing left-leaning viewpoints on the channel, and both of them were later removed from the position of anchor.[31] Audience viewership during the 2008 Presidential election more than doubled from the 2004 Presidential election, and the channel topped CNN in ratings for the first time during the last three months of the campaign in the key 25-54 age demographic.[32][33]

Their removal of Olberman and Matthews from that role implies to me they recognized they crossed a line with that level of bias. It would be akin to Fox having Glenn Beck anchoring the Fox election coverage. Instead, there is a separation maintained between the news reporting and the news talk shows. MSNBC crossed that line, then backtracked away from it.

 

[hillzagold]

On November 13, 2009, in the days leading up to the release of 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin's book "Going Rogue", MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan used photoshopped pictures of Palin on the channel's Morning Meeting program. Ratigan apologized a few days later stating, "I want to apologize to Governor Palin and all of our viewers. On Friday, in a very misguided attempt to have some fun in advance of Sarah Palin’s upcoming book Going Rogue, our staff mistakenly used some clearly photoshopped images of Ms. Palin without any acknowledgment."[64]

You didn't even look at those photos, did youYou say they don't attack while refusing to see my proof of their attacks. My big listed that covered a single week of what they did. This conversation ended then.

I'd also remind you that Beck is very critical of the Neo-con movement, and really 'got his stripes' critiquing President Bush (this esspecially when Savage and Rush skirted the issue of critiquing President Bush, esspecially the stimulus-type policies in his 2nd term).

History means nothing to the right, or they would have denounced Beck's MLK rally that went against what MLK believed in. Remember that?

Oh, and Mege, you said the left was more defensive. Well the right is working pretty hard to defend Palin right about now.