The "Problem" is that this forum skews to the left, and Fox news is a right-skewed organization.
Right, because skewed news is a good thing from any angle.
Opinion pieces being 80-90% of the programming on a station that uses the word NEWS right in the title certainly doesn't ever give anyone the implication or impression that those opinions might be fact, rather than opinion or anything.
Of course I'd say a more fundamental problem of FoxNEWS is just the nature of 24H news itself - notice how much the level of vitriol in politics has raised with the rise of 24H news - when you've got to run programming for 8-10 hrs a day (generally looped 2-3 times) and you want to keep people engaged you either need to conflate small things into something huge or you need to echo the same minor point hour after hour after hour. There just isn't enough real news to fill the hours that they program, unless you go international - but not enough of the US cares about that to be worth the programming time.
Look at how much vitriol was hurled at Reagan back in his time before 24H news existed - almost nil - even though he largely took a path very similar to our current President who's public enemy #1 to many. Many that claim to admire Reagan at that. (And note, I'm not the only one who says this, even his SON says that these days - he's actually asked for people to stop using his fathers name making claims that his father supported things that he absolutely did not, etc. [i.e. immigration - Reagan was the most liberal President for immigration since we have had laws about immigration])
The "Problem" is that this forum skews to the left, and Fox news is a right-skewed organization.
according to the last election the whole country as a majority is skewing to the left. So in a way that should mean what is considered "central" or "moderate" should shift to the left as well. At least that is my opinion. We don't base what is moderate or central by averaging the sever right and sever left, but rather the middle median of us as a people.
Eh, I'd not say that Yoru - Obama is a moderate like pretty much every other President in memory. As were many of the Congressional seats picked up by the Dems.
Eh, I'd not say that Yoru - Obama is a moderate like pretty much every other President in memory. As were many of the Congressional seats picked up by the Dems.
Though other polls as well we have been shown to be shifting more and more to the left. The reason Obama won is actually mostly Romney's fault. The right wing went so far to the right in several instances that it lost many of the Rhinos that would have supported them otherwise. Also they can't fall back on the "white vote" anymore as they have shut out several minorities. And then of course when they loose you have people like Rush Limbagh doing knee jerk reactions saying that he guess the only way for the republican party to survive is to give out free abortions no questions asked, open the borders and communism. Which of course isn't true even a slight bit.
The republican party isn't actually in a set situation where they have to reform the whole party but mainly just get rid of a a few non-centeral portions of their platform mainly towards sever anti-hispanic immigration laws and the anti-GLBTQ stance. Neither of course are central to their cause of smaller government and lower taxes.
But we as a nation are overwhelmingly in support of homosexual marrige equality, women's rights and equality as well as an increase hispanic population that supports the "dream act". So by these means we are shifting left politically as a country. There are pockets (mainly in the Jesusland part of the US) where they are tying up certain parts of legislation on many of these social issues. But overall if we had a direct vote right now more than likely we would have all those issues passed right now.
As far as fisically conservative we have just as many as before. But socially we are shifting left.
Because its an obnoxiouse conservative ***** fest, thats whats wrong with it. But its not like MSNBC is any better...
I would rather listen to nails on chalk board than that cad Racheal Madow. You can however play a fun drinking game with her show: Take a shot eveytime she pulls out a straw-man. You will be drunk in a matter of minutes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern (I collect the format):
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron WDeath and Taxes WSoul Sisters RWG Pod Combo URSplinter Twin URStorm RBurn
The same thing that's wrong with the entire media-industrial-pundit complex: journalistic standards are sacrificed for party/ideological agendas when news organizations are run with a profit motive instead of as a supplement to a network's "money making wing", ie entertainment and 'soft news' (Sports, celebrity stuff, and so on.)
The 'pundit' phenomenon is probably the biggest issue, because they are essentially paid to circumvent the traditional role of news people and distort the news to fit into their opinion, a worldview or a narrative from on high. I would call only a handful of people from Fox/Msnbc/CNN these days true journalists.
I find 90% of the time, it's actually Fox's critics that mislead the public. Criticism on bias from Fox is often focused on its talk shows. The problem is that such shows are not intended to be unbiased (on ANY network). The actual news on Fox News is less problematic than asserted.
The actual news, the non-opinion pieces, on FoxNEWS is quite good - I hate the station for all its OpEd programming - but Shep Smith in particular provides a good entertaining bit of real news, and is generally willing to poke the OpEd people about being wrong/overzealous/goofy as they often are.
Truth.
People on the left see the opinion stuff and write off Fox News.
But in reality when it comes to news coverage Fox has more and better news then any other source.
If you filter out the op-ed its the best American News coverage.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't you see that the whole aim of Moderators is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make infractions literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
Best American News coverage where? On television? Because there are tons of print sources doing a much better job than Fox/MSNBC/CNN at delivering comprehensive news...
I find 90% of the time, it's actually Fox's critics that mislead the public. Criticism on bias from Fox is often focused on its talk shows. The problem is that such shows are not intended to be unbiased (on ANY network). The actual news on Fox News is less problematic than asserted.
The actual news, the non-opinion pieces, on FoxNEWS is quite good - I hate the station for all its OpEd programming - but Shep Smith in particular provides a good entertaining bit of real news, and is generally willing to poke the OpEd people about being wrong/overzealous/goofy as they often are.
Truth.
People on the left see the opinion stuff and write off Fox News.
But in reality when it comes to news coverage Fox has more and better news then any other source.
If you filter out the op-ed its the best American News coverage.
Maybe for 24H news, it's a far cry from print and standard news programs however.
Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch whose newspaper in England, probably with his full knowledge and consent, hacked into a missing girl's phone to send mysterious texts to her family and friends to create news.
And when the story broke, his papers and stations in America were forbidden from reporting on it.
The actual news reporting might not be bad. But what gets reported is still very much slanted.
I find 90% of the time, it's actually Fox's critics that mislead the public. Criticism on bias from Fox is often focused on its talk shows. The problem is that such shows are not intended to be unbiased (on ANY network). The actual news on Fox News is less problematic than asserted.
The actual news, the non-opinion pieces, on FoxNEWS is quite good - I hate the station for all its OpEd programming - but Shep Smith in particular provides a good entertaining bit of real news, and is generally willing to poke the OpEd people about being wrong/overzealous/goofy as they often are.
Truth.
People on the left see the opinion stuff and write off Fox News.
But in reality when it comes to news coverage Fox has more and better news then any other source.
If you filter out the op-ed its the best American News coverage.
Somewhat true. They don't suffer from Missing White Girl Syndrome half as much as other news sources.
I find it funny that everyone talks bad about Fox news as being biased BS but no one seem to do the same with MSNBC which is just as bad.
If anyone watches MSNBC with half the objectiveity with which they view Fox then they would find that the MSNBC people are just as hyperbolic and crazy as the fox people.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern (I collect the format):
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron WDeath and Taxes WSoul Sisters RWG Pod Combo URSplinter Twin URStorm RBurn
I would like to note that it is literally Jon Stewart's job to cherry-pick the worst excesses of the 24-hour news cycle and do funny upon it for twenty minutes. It is not his job to be fair or representative in his sampling.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As some one who hates both parties, I'd say I find Fox much worse than MSNBC and the like, while they are both disgustingly partisan Fox news routinely ignores reality for its aggenda.
When a democrat is caught in scandal, MSNBC will condemn him, When a republican is in a scandal, they are as like to condemn his as they are to defend him or ignore the story.
When Obama lost the debate the liberal new networks said so, when Romeny lost a debate on Fox it's reported as Romney winning or a tie.
I don't remember a concerted effort to take credit from Bush for getting Suddam.
A 40 dollar mythic rare would constitute a must have 4 of that goes in many decks.
Stats About Mythics
-Mythics are on average 40% rarer than pre-mythic rares
(old blocks about 200 rares, Mythic blocks 35+ mythics)
-They are printing more new cards a year not less
(about 665 now vs. 630 in most pre-mythic block)
-To drop the value of a rare by $1 a mythic must go up $2
-In a 3 year time span deck prices doubled. I am petitioning for the removal of mythic rarity. Sig this to join the cause.
I would like to note that it is literally Jon Stewart's job to cherry-pick the worst excesses of the 24-hour news cycle and do funny upon it for twenty minutes. It is not his job to be fair or representative in his sampling.
And I feel it is a job he does well. It does give us a high-water mark for those excesses, though, and (hypothetically, as I don't live in the US) it is higher than I'd prefer it.
As some one who hates both parties, I'd say I find Fox much worse than MSNBC and the like, while they are both disgustingly partisan Fox news routinely ignores reality for its aggenda.
When a democrat is caught in scandal, MSNBC will condemn him, When a republican is in a scandal, they are as like to condemn his as they are to defend him or ignore the story.
I believe that Fox, in the past, had a habit of putting a (D) after the name of a Republican caught in a scandal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
The "Problem" is that this forum skews to the left, and Fox news is a right-skewed organization.
There's a number of conservatives on the forum, the "forum doesn't skew to the left." It's just that the right has shifted farther right, and makes us that are on the right appear to be leftists. Equally, many libertarian stances are also very leftist when considering social issues.
I'm willing to say that some of the "liberals" are far more traditional Democrat and traditional Republican than they are "socialists." There's only a handful of very ardent socialists. Actually to be honest, I can really only think of one whose strenuously advocated for more socialism and he (or she?) isn't even American.
The government does some really bone headed things and does make it difficult to do business and run government in the US. Especially with the hegemony of local politics and trying to do anything across state lines is a pain in the ass.
Frankly, I'd be willing to see more what we did with the banking system and having bodies that cover blocs of states that are connected regionally to each other to develop and run regulations based on economy and geography that were protected from the whims of Congress and were more adherent to the block of state Congresses. A sort of "middle verse" between states and the federal government, as local governments are becoming more side lined in this day and age on certain policies. But we don't get really great OP ed pieces on the television, frankly I find that there are great books out there that explain policy. It's just that you need to know the name of the authors. I'm overall very tired of having people that want "less government, less taxes, imposing my religion on everyone" crowd.
Frankly, the narrative seems to be shifting towards "angry white" image and Fox reinstating that image for the worst of the agrarian localist and petty bourgeoisie is silly. Rather than highlighting effective policies done on the local and state level, and talking about how they save people money would go a long way to rehabilitate Fox and bring more hipsters into the conservative fold. But, you have to show both emotion and logic at the same time.
Eh, I'd not say that Yoru - Obama is a moderate like pretty much every other President in memory. As were many of the Congressional seats picked up by the Dems.
He's very "Clintonian" and seems to be more pro business than people like Bernie Sanders. Which can be great or really bad.
Murdoch as a business person is interesting, but with probably maybe the exception of a few of his newspapers there's typically a decline in quality from a news source to a rag paper. We really don't need "edutainment" and a dissension into 19th century newspapers. At least the 19th century newspapers are funny to read, but today it maybe why people like Colbert and Stewart are today's "big newsmen" since they actually do cover topics people care about. It's sad really, but to be honest looking at some of the Stewart's extended interviews I wish he would do an interview show and be given an hour of television to do it.
Overall, conventions and debates have sucked for a while. The best stuff seems to be books written after the campaigns are over that explain the behinds the scenes. There are a few excellent journalists and think tanks out there, but after a while getting statistics on how many Megazords, Voltrons, and other such machines for "defense purposes" gets old.
Fox is incredibly right winged and biased. I'm sure other American news channels are just as bad, but Fox makes no attempt to hide it. Like seriously, watch a episode of Glenn Beck.
"This man has more Nazi props than the History Channel!" - Lewis Black
Even so he goes after anyone who makes themselves available, its just that Fox really really tries to be available to him.
Yes, it does. I'm just saying that watching the condensed version he provides gives one a distorted perspective on the reality. It is very easy, if all you know about Fox News you get from Jon Stewart, to misunderstand it as a round-the-clock feed of clownishly inept propaganda. And it is never good to misunderstand the nature of a problem.
Take Glenn Beck for an (admittedly outdated) example. If all you saw was Stewart's coverage of Beck, you'd get the impression that Beck's on-screen persona is that of a pompous and pontificating buffoon, a sort of mock-professor with his glasses and his chalkboard. You would never know that the full Beck you see on the show is whimsical and self-deprecating as well - he's actually shown, and laughed along with, those sketches where Stewart impersonates him. Seeing that gives you a very different understanding of how he appeals to his target audience. They're not just sheeple who are suckered by the merest whiff of intellectualism. They're reasonable adults who have come to trust a man who presents himself as down-to-earth, humble, and cheerfully honest, while of course telling them what they want to hear. As a matter of fact, in this respect he is not unlike Jon Stewart. And it seems to me like that's really something to think about, even if we find Stewart's politics acceptable and Beck's abhorrent.
I believe that Fox, in the past, had a habit of putting a (D) after the name of a Republican caught in a scandal.
Fox is not the first or only network to commit this little "mistake" (or its sneakier relative, dropping the party tag altogether when you don't want to admit it). But it has become the most egregious offender.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Why does it have to be "Fox News"? Why can't it be "MSNBC" with their increidbly left-wing propaganda machine, all the while masquerading as a "news outlet" like people claim Fox News does?
What about when CNN decides to air Al Sharpton for an hour so he can continue his whole, "White people are racist and if you don't agree with me you just prove my point!" BS?
Why does it appear that it's okay to bash Fox News on these forums, but the moment someone points out the lunacy of the other side of the aisle, it should be hands-off?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
Why does it have to be "Fox News"? Why can't it be "MSNBC" with their increidbly left-wing propaganda machine, all the while masquerading as a "news outlet" like people claim Fox News does?
What about when CNN decides to air Al Sharpton for an hour so he can continue his whole, "White people are racist and if you don't agree with me you just prove my point!" BS?
Why does it appear that it's okay to bash Fox News on these forums, but the moment someone points out the lunacy of the other side of the aisle, it should be hands-off?
I don't think anyone is saying MSNBC is not left wing biased. Its been brought up and no one has defended anything otherwise. However it can be noted that while MSNBC is left wing biased it is no where near in the league of Fox news. Fox news totally out-classes every other news station in terms of biased-ness.
Also the only major "left wing political propganda network" is MSNBC. The others are relativly moderate slightly leaning left. Anyone who isn't exceptionally right is considered "far left" as of the recent year and its simply not true. Also there are a number of people in the "the whole media cept fox news is a left wing political machine" are also people that say that things like climate change and evolution are left wing propoganda......
One major problem I have with fox news is actually how they have (on several occasions) brought up stories about how someone is now questioning all of the mainstream scientific fact as if it was from a legitimate source. In atuality there is NO evidence to support the contrary of either climate change or evolution. yet on many occasions Fox news has brought up so called "experts" to try and refute it so as to pander to the extremist christian stupidity crowd.
So aside from extrem political bias things like that piss me off about fox.
Why does it have to be "Fox News"? Why can't it be "MSNBC" with their increidbly left-wing propaganda machine, all the while masquerading as a "news outlet" like people claim Fox News does?
What about when CNN decides to air Al Sharpton for an hour so he can continue his whole, "White people are racist and if you don't agree with me you just prove my point!" BS?
Why does it appear that it's okay to bash Fox News on these forums, but the moment someone points out the lunacy of the other side of the aisle, it should be hands-off?
Who said it was hands off? Man up and make the thread if you want to discuss it. The OP wants to discuss fox, and as such, phrased his question around them.
Why can't you admit there's a problem when something is presenting itself as "fair and balanced" news, and it's actually a right-wing OpEd propoganda machine? I don't mind the fact that fox exists. I don't even care that they've taken the hard right slant. I resent and detest their use of the term "news" in their description.
FYI: on election night, all I would watch is fox news. Not because their coverage was so great, just because I knew however bad they said Obama was doin he was probably doing at least 10% better.
Lastly, if you feel an overwhelming sense of disagreement from users here regarding your feelings on fox news, isn't objectively looking at the situation to see if there's any truth a better idea than pulling the old "But ma, look at the other guys!".
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
Does Fox have any liberal hosts or contributors anymore? I know they used to have Alan Colmes as a punchingvbag for Hannity. MSNBC has Steve Schmidt, former Republican presidential campaign advisor, Michael Steele former Republican party chairman, David Frum Republican speexhwriter has been on lately, Joe Scarbarough was a former Republican congressman and he has his own show. Theres another Republican host thats on in the afternoons as part of a panel.
Take Glenn Beck for an (admittedly outdated) example. If all you saw was Stewart's coverage of Beck, you'd get the impression that Beck's on-screen persona is that of a pompous and pontificating buffoon, a sort of mock-professor with his glasses and his chalkboard. You would never know that the full Beck you see on the show is whimsical and self-deprecating as well - he's actually shown, and laughed along with, those sketches where Stewart impersonates him. Seeing that gives you a very different understanding of how he appeals to his target audience. They're not just sheeple who are suckered by the merest whiff of intellectualism. They're reasonable adults who have come to trust a man who presents himself as down-to-earth, humble, and cheerfully honest, while of course telling them what they want to hear. As a matter of fact, in this respect he is not unlike Jon Stewart. And it seems to me like that's really something to think about, even if we find Stewart's politics acceptable and Beck's abhorrent.
Beck had "Founder Fridays," which was actually a good segment at times. However, he could have over time expanded it as a pulpit to get people to read more history and primary resources and not just Constitutional but also over time through out the major developmental periods with similar "weekly spots."
I think he's a good showman, but his content was lacking and could have had more edutainment while appealing to "giving people what they want to hear." Stewart's own portrayal at times was equally spot on at times, especially with the conspiracy theory stuff.
Stewart seemed to have been his best during interviews, and the same with Beck with an opening lecture. There seems to be a place for good political discussion. CSPAN has better material, but lacks the pomp that other shows where they lack depth. A good show that can combine the pomp with good circumstances seems to be something yet to find a home.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Right, because skewed news is a good thing from any angle.
Opinion pieces being 80-90% of the programming on a station that uses the word NEWS right in the title certainly doesn't ever give anyone the implication or impression that those opinions might be fact, rather than opinion or anything.
Of course I'd say a more fundamental problem of FoxNEWS is just the nature of 24H news itself - notice how much the level of vitriol in politics has raised with the rise of 24H news - when you've got to run programming for 8-10 hrs a day (generally looped 2-3 times) and you want to keep people engaged you either need to conflate small things into something huge or you need to echo the same minor point hour after hour after hour. There just isn't enough real news to fill the hours that they program, unless you go international - but not enough of the US cares about that to be worth the programming time.
Look at how much vitriol was hurled at Reagan back in his time before 24H news existed - almost nil - even though he largely took a path very similar to our current President who's public enemy #1 to many. Many that claim to admire Reagan at that. (And note, I'm not the only one who says this, even his SON says that these days - he's actually asked for people to stop using his fathers name making claims that his father supported things that he absolutely did not, etc. [i.e. immigration - Reagan was the most liberal President for immigration since we have had laws about immigration])
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
according to the last election the whole country as a majority is skewing to the left. So in a way that should mean what is considered "central" or "moderate" should shift to the left as well. At least that is my opinion. We don't base what is moderate or central by averaging the sever right and sever left, but rather the middle median of us as a people.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Though other polls as well we have been shown to be shifting more and more to the left. The reason Obama won is actually mostly Romney's fault. The right wing went so far to the right in several instances that it lost many of the Rhinos that would have supported them otherwise. Also they can't fall back on the "white vote" anymore as they have shut out several minorities. And then of course when they loose you have people like Rush Limbagh doing knee jerk reactions saying that he guess the only way for the republican party to survive is to give out free abortions no questions asked, open the borders and communism. Which of course isn't true even a slight bit.
The republican party isn't actually in a set situation where they have to reform the whole party but mainly just get rid of a a few non-centeral portions of their platform mainly towards sever anti-hispanic immigration laws and the anti-GLBTQ stance. Neither of course are central to their cause of smaller government and lower taxes.
But we as a nation are overwhelmingly in support of homosexual marrige equality, women's rights and equality as well as an increase hispanic population that supports the "dream act". So by these means we are shifting left politically as a country. There are pockets (mainly in the Jesusland part of the US) where they are tying up certain parts of legislation on many of these social issues. But overall if we had a direct vote right now more than likely we would have all those issues passed right now.
As far as fisically conservative we have just as many as before. But socially we are shifting left.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I would rather listen to nails on chalk board than that cad Racheal Madow. You can however play a fun drinking game with her show: Take a shot eveytime she pulls out a straw-man. You will be drunk in a matter of minutes.
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron
WDeath and Taxes
WSoul Sisters
RWG Pod Combo
URSplinter Twin
URStorm
RBurn
The 'pundit' phenomenon is probably the biggest issue, because they are essentially paid to circumvent the traditional role of news people and distort the news to fit into their opinion, a worldview or a narrative from on high. I would call only a handful of people from Fox/Msnbc/CNN these days true journalists.
Truth.
People on the left see the opinion stuff and write off Fox News.
But in reality when it comes to news coverage Fox has more and better news then any other source.
If you filter out the op-ed its the best American News coverage.
Maybe for 24H news, it's a far cry from print and standard news programs however.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
And when the story broke, his papers and stations in America were forbidden from reporting on it.
The actual news reporting might not be bad. But what gets reported is still very much slanted.
I find it funny that everyone talks bad about Fox news as being biased BS but no one seem to do the same with MSNBC which is just as bad.
If anyone watches MSNBC with half the objectiveity with which they view Fox then they would find that the MSNBC people are just as hyperbolic and crazy as the fox people.
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron
WDeath and Taxes
WSoul Sisters
RWG Pod Combo
URSplinter Twin
URStorm
RBurn
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
When a democrat is caught in scandal, MSNBC will condemn him, When a republican is in a scandal, they are as like to condemn his as they are to defend him or ignore the story.
When Obama lost the debate the liberal new networks said so, when Romeny lost a debate on Fox it's reported as Romney winning or a tie.
I don't remember a concerted effort to take credit from Bush for getting Suddam.
Stats About Mythics
-Mythics are on average 40% rarer than pre-mythic rares
(old blocks about 200 rares, Mythic blocks 35+ mythics)
-They are printing more new cards a year not less
(about 665 now vs. 630 in most pre-mythic block)
-To drop the value of a rare by $1 a mythic must go up $2
-In a 3 year time span deck prices doubled.
I am petitioning for the removal of mythic rarity. Sig this to join the cause.
And I feel it is a job he does well. It does give us a high-water mark for those excesses, though, and (hypothetically, as I don't live in the US) it is higher than I'd prefer it.
I believe that Fox, in the past, had a habit of putting a (D) after the name of a Republican caught in a scandal.
There's a number of conservatives on the forum, the "forum doesn't skew to the left." It's just that the right has shifted farther right, and makes us that are on the right appear to be leftists. Equally, many libertarian stances are also very leftist when considering social issues.
I'm willing to say that some of the "liberals" are far more traditional Democrat and traditional Republican than they are "socialists." There's only a handful of very ardent socialists. Actually to be honest, I can really only think of one whose strenuously advocated for more socialism and he (or she?) isn't even American.
The government does some really bone headed things and does make it difficult to do business and run government in the US. Especially with the hegemony of local politics and trying to do anything across state lines is a pain in the ass.
Frankly, I'd be willing to see more what we did with the banking system and having bodies that cover blocs of states that are connected regionally to each other to develop and run regulations based on economy and geography that were protected from the whims of Congress and were more adherent to the block of state Congresses. A sort of "middle verse" between states and the federal government, as local governments are becoming more side lined in this day and age on certain policies. But we don't get really great OP ed pieces on the television, frankly I find that there are great books out there that explain policy. It's just that you need to know the name of the authors. I'm overall very tired of having people that want "less government, less taxes, imposing my religion on everyone" crowd.
Frankly, the narrative seems to be shifting towards "angry white" image and Fox reinstating that image for the worst of the agrarian localist and petty bourgeoisie is silly. Rather than highlighting effective policies done on the local and state level, and talking about how they save people money would go a long way to rehabilitate Fox and bring more hipsters into the conservative fold. But, you have to show both emotion and logic at the same time.
He's very "Clintonian" and seems to be more pro business than people like Bernie Sanders. Which can be great or really bad.
Murdoch as a business person is interesting, but with probably maybe the exception of a few of his newspapers there's typically a decline in quality from a news source to a rag paper. We really don't need "edutainment" and a dissension into 19th century newspapers. At least the 19th century newspapers are funny to read, but today it maybe why people like Colbert and Stewart are today's "big newsmen" since they actually do cover topics people care about. It's sad really, but to be honest looking at some of the Stewart's extended interviews I wish he would do an interview show and be given an hour of television to do it.
Overall, conventions and debates have sucked for a while. The best stuff seems to be books written after the campaigns are over that explain the behinds the scenes. There are a few excellent journalists and think tanks out there, but after a while getting statistics on how many Megazords, Voltrons, and other such machines for "defense purposes" gets old.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Fox is incredibly right winged and biased. I'm sure other American news channels are just as bad, but Fox makes no attempt to hide it. Like seriously, watch a episode of Glenn Beck.
"This man has more Nazi props than the History Channel!" - Lewis Black
Yes, it does. I'm just saying that watching the condensed version he provides gives one a distorted perspective on the reality. It is very easy, if all you know about Fox News you get from Jon Stewart, to misunderstand it as a round-the-clock feed of clownishly inept propaganda. And it is never good to misunderstand the nature of a problem.
Take Glenn Beck for an (admittedly outdated) example. If all you saw was Stewart's coverage of Beck, you'd get the impression that Beck's on-screen persona is that of a pompous and pontificating buffoon, a sort of mock-professor with his glasses and his chalkboard. You would never know that the full Beck you see on the show is whimsical and self-deprecating as well - he's actually shown, and laughed along with, those sketches where Stewart impersonates him. Seeing that gives you a very different understanding of how he appeals to his target audience. They're not just sheeple who are suckered by the merest whiff of intellectualism. They're reasonable adults who have come to trust a man who presents himself as down-to-earth, humble, and cheerfully honest, while of course telling them what they want to hear. As a matter of fact, in this respect he is not unlike Jon Stewart. And it seems to me like that's really something to think about, even if we find Stewart's politics acceptable and Beck's abhorrent.
Cronkite it ain't, that's for sure.
Fox is not the first or only network to commit this little "mistake" (or its sneakier relative, dropping the party tag altogether when you don't want to admit it). But it has become the most egregious offender.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Why does it have to be "Fox News"? Why can't it be "MSNBC" with their increidbly left-wing propaganda machine, all the while masquerading as a "news outlet" like people claim Fox News does?
What about when CNN decides to air Al Sharpton for an hour so he can continue his whole, "White people are racist and if you don't agree with me you just prove my point!" BS?
Why does it appear that it's okay to bash Fox News on these forums, but the moment someone points out the lunacy of the other side of the aisle, it should be hands-off?
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
I don't think anyone is saying MSNBC is not left wing biased. Its been brought up and no one has defended anything otherwise. However it can be noted that while MSNBC is left wing biased it is no where near in the league of Fox news. Fox news totally out-classes every other news station in terms of biased-ness.
Also the only major "left wing political propganda network" is MSNBC. The others are relativly moderate slightly leaning left. Anyone who isn't exceptionally right is considered "far left" as of the recent year and its simply not true. Also there are a number of people in the "the whole media cept fox news is a left wing political machine" are also people that say that things like climate change and evolution are left wing propoganda......
One major problem I have with fox news is actually how they have (on several occasions) brought up stories about how someone is now questioning all of the mainstream scientific fact as if it was from a legitimate source. In atuality there is NO evidence to support the contrary of either climate change or evolution. yet on many occasions Fox news has brought up so called "experts" to try and refute it so as to pander to the extremist christian stupidity crowd.
So aside from extrem political bias things like that piss me off about fox.
Everything on there is admitted to be opinion and they actually have real conservative hosts on the network, Joe Scarborough for example.
Who said it was hands off? Man up and make the thread if you want to discuss it. The OP wants to discuss fox, and as such, phrased his question around them.
Why can't you admit there's a problem when something is presenting itself as "fair and balanced" news, and it's actually a right-wing OpEd propoganda machine? I don't mind the fact that fox exists. I don't even care that they've taken the hard right slant. I resent and detest their use of the term "news" in their description.
FYI: on election night, all I would watch is fox news. Not because their coverage was so great, just because I knew however bad they said Obama was doin he was probably doing at least 10% better.
Lastly, if you feel an overwhelming sense of disagreement from users here regarding your feelings on fox news, isn't objectively looking at the situation to see if there's any truth a better idea than pulling the old "But ma, look at the other guys!".
That's how I rank my preferences, and I'm a conservative.
Beck had "Founder Fridays," which was actually a good segment at times. However, he could have over time expanded it as a pulpit to get people to read more history and primary resources and not just Constitutional but also over time through out the major developmental periods with similar "weekly spots."
I think he's a good showman, but his content was lacking and could have had more edutainment while appealing to "giving people what they want to hear." Stewart's own portrayal at times was equally spot on at times, especially with the conspiracy theory stuff.
Stewart seemed to have been his best during interviews, and the same with Beck with an opening lecture. There seems to be a place for good political discussion. CSPAN has better material, but lacks the pomp that other shows where they lack depth. A good show that can combine the pomp with good circumstances seems to be something yet to find a home.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Spam infraction.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.