Are you even listening to us at all? You really are acting like we are attacking you directly.
No news station is infallible. I think all news is bias, including msnbc, cnn, abc, fox, and all the others. You are the one saying that everybody is bias -except- for Fox News.
Bill O'Reilly shouldn't be trusted, that guy's misdirection on issues is very apparent.
Windu, you do realize Bill O'Reilly is a commentator, and btw he often presents stuff to back his statements up. Including one from a supposed "expert" from MSNBC calling our troops mercenaries. He provided a link to the guy's article for people to see for themselves.
I'm not saying Fox News doesn't have bias btw, I'm saying they are more trustworthy than you give them credit for.
I really doubt that Bill was trying to mislead viewers. Of course you really doubt that. You have demonstrated in this thread that you truly believe that Fox news is doing everything it can to present you with unbiased news. This is why you apparently miss their obvious bias.
Seriously, why did Fox News due a much better Republican Primary debate than MSNBC?
Could it be they are more use to choreographing entertainment programs than reporting real news?
He usually tries to get mail that are on both sides of the argument in question...
But who choices the emails he reads on the air? All I hear him read from the left are emails that attack him personally, thus making it easy for him to portray the left as a bunch of nut jobs.
Windu, you do realize Bill O'Reilly is a commentator, and btw he often presents stuff to back his statements up. Including one from a supposed "expert" from MSNBC calling our troops mercenaries. He provided a link to the guy's article for people to see for themselves.
You’ve written over and over GarfieldJL the difference between commentary and news reporting and how it is acceptable for Fox News to be considered “Fair and Balanced” if you separate the commentator’s views from the news program. Personally I would consider a Blog the same as commentary in that it is the author’s personal views. Mr. William M Arkin used the term “mercenaries” is a sarcastic matter while trying to make his point. While I believe it to be at best a poor excuse for humor or at worst it is inapprehensible, I fail to see how this proves media bias using your definition. I also fail to see what this has to do with MSNBC as Mr. William M Arkin wrote this blog in the blog section of the Washington Post.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/01/the_troops_also_need_to_suppor.html)
I’m interested in reporters being fair on the air that does not mean the reporter can not have personal views off the air.
The main reason I have a problem with Fox News is their self appointed slogans they use on the air, like “Fair and Balanced” and “No Spin.” When neither is remotely true, if they decide to change the slogans to “Fair to the right and leaning strongly to the right” and “Spin to the right” then I would have no problem with them.
What's really interesting is that people only seem to be going after Fox News with the exception of myself. I've been the only one to demonstrate bias in the other networks.
Reverse the question and ask yourself why you are the only one defending Fox News?
Most people here have admitted that no news network is unbiased. All News agencies have leanings and most are to the left. No one here is defending CBS, ABC, NBC, BBC, CNN or any other media source the way you are defending Fox News. Even when evidence is presented that Fox News makes mistakes, you’ve question it as a left wing conspiracy against Fox News.
Like I’ve said before if you trust Fox News then watch Fox News, just don’t expect everyone else to agree with you that everything they spout is true and unbias.
“Fair and Balanced” and “No Spin.” When neither is remotely true.
It is not completely true, period.
Not, remotely!
No, uncertainty!
Anybody who watch that channel should obviously notice that.
mimartin, I've read that article you're talking about and a lot of people myself included really believe the sarcasm statement is a copout. I've read that article for myself in that guy's own hand, our troops put their lives on the line for our freedom everyday and for that guy to try to paint our troops as mercenaries is beneath contempt.
Windu Chi, as for your statements concerning Bill O'Reilly, I'm going to state he does give his opinions, that being said, he clearly labels things as his opinion when he gives it.
Statements like:
"You know what I think I think..."
He clearly makes it known when he's giving his opinion, he's also a commentator, which is a lot better than Dan Rather's reporting the story concerning Bush which turned out to be bogus as the truth because it didn't matter what the facts indicated it was what Dan Rather believed.
Next there is the fact that Fox News routinely has people on from both sides of the Political Spectrum.
Alan Colmes is a democrat.
Routine guests like Dick Morris and Bernard Goldberg are both liberals, though Mr. Goldberg is the one that pointed out the left wing bias in the mainstream media and was turned into a pariah because of it.
Windu, just because Fox News leans conservative doesn't mean they aren't trustworthy. Have they made mistakes, probably no one is perfect, however they've worked to improve themselves and they take feedback and listen to it.
The thing people aren't taking into account is that due to the fact Fox News doesn't follow the "mainstream media outlets" and Fox News is getting extremely good ratings, is that those outlets are trying to find anything they can no matter how small that can be used to discredit Fox News. The "mainstream media" does not call each other when say CBS reports a bogus story everyone was eerily silent except Fox News.
I'm not saying one shouldn't get information from multiple sources, however you really have to be careful what you consider as a different source. Many media outlets get their stories directly from The New York Times that means outlets like CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and ABC pull their stories from the same source. Literally, The New York Times is the most influencial paper in the United States even though over 90% of Americans don't read it, it's just that it's the paper of choice for the media elite. See the problem with using NBC as a source to confirm what CBS says? They're both getting their story from the same source, you're just hearing two different media outlets reporting material using the same source. While Fox News does pay attention to The New York Times, they don't rely on it like other media outlets.
mimartin, I've read that article you're talking about and a lot of people myself included really believe the sarcasm statement is a copout. I've read that article for myself in that guy's own hand, our troops put their lives on the line for our freedom everyday and for that guy to try to paint our troops as mercenaries is beneath contempt.
And I wrote as much above, but it was not an article as you and Bill O'Reilly imply. It was a blog. Are you saying that there is no difference between a blog and a news article written for a magazine or website? If there isn’t a difference, then why is there a difference between a commentary and news program? Or are you saying it ok for everyone on the right to have a personal opinion, but news personalities on the left should keep their big mouths shut?
I’m not defending Mr. William M. Arkin, but I fail to see how a blog proves that MSNBC (as you stated) or NBC (as Bill O’Really stated) is/is becoming more bias than any other News Agency including Fox News.
Mr. William M. Arkin portrays himself as a "military expert" even on MSNBC, so he's claiming to be an expert on our military, when in fact he isn't.
O'Reilly is a commentator, he gives his views on stories and such, however he doesn't make claims that he's the expert of something that he isn't. This is also the difference between the Swift Boat Vets and the CBS Memogate. The swift boat vets were whom they claimed to be, the CBS memogate involved falsified documents. O'Reilly gave the swift boat vets a fair hearing, he invited John Kerry on to rebut it and Kerry never did.
O'Reilly also treated the President with respect in interviews because:
1. Bush answered the question instead of going on a circular rant instead of answering the question.
2. If you act in a manner that the Secret Service perceives that the President is being threatened you're liable to be arrested.
Further note concerning memogate:
The authenticity was put into question less than an hour after the story aired. CBS kept clinging to the idea that it was the truth for two weeks. They also tried to impede people from taking a look at it for themselves because it had become apparent very quickly that it wouldn't hold up. To be blunt the memo was in a font style that wasn't even in use while President Bush was in the National Guard, further the memo's font spacing was variable something you find with computer printouts. By the way reprinting scanned text will come back in the original font with the original spacing because of the fact scans are in the form of an image.
Mr. William M. Arkin portrays himself as a "military expert" even on MSNBC, so he's claiming to be an expert on our military, when in fact he isn't.
How do you know he isn't an expert? If you read the BLOG you'd know that Mr. Arkin did serve as an active member of the American military. He also voluntarily, but was not sent to Vietnam. Then who should decide just who is a military expert? Should we consider someone that broke the law while serving the nation as a military officer an expert? What if he got off on a technicality?
I still fail to see what a blog has to do with Media bias.
I also fail to see what the swift boat has to do with media bias. All the networks covered it even though it contradicted official military records. I have to much respect for the men and women that serve our nation to criticize that service. I would never question John McCain’s just because I may disagree with his politics. I never served, but my father, step-father, uncles and brother all did. They all say the military makes a lot of mistakes, but they usually don’t give out silver stars and purple hearts to undeserving people. They had the right to question what he did after the war, but as far as his service, well at least he served instead of hiding in England or using his father’s influence to get into the National Guard.
CBS got rid of the problem; I don’t think there much else they can do besides termination.
About the only thing they could've done besides termination would have been to file some kind of lawsuit. Beyond charging them with some kind of malicious misuse of company property....(but not being a lawyer, I don't know what you could charge, nor do I believe that they'd do it if they could). Termination would have been suitable enough, with anything extra--beyond perhaps informal blackballing (ie "you'll never work in this racket again, kid")--amounting to overkill.
I think that the choice of material presented by a media outlet is also what earns it the label of bias (either to the right or left). If an outfit like MSNBC tends to drift leftward in its choice of material, that reflects a bias at that network. An internal BBC report has just recently revealed left leaning bias within its corporation. I agree that Arkin's free to write whatever he wants w/in the confines of the law. It's up to us to decide whether he presents himself in a credible fashion.
Was this thing with the BBC before or after their fiasco concerning the Israeli/Lebanon War.
Was this thing with the BBC before or after their fiasco concerning the Israeli/Lebanon War.
Fiasco? Linky to news story (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6763205.stm) - it also contains a link to the full report.
About the only thing they could've done besides termination would have been to file some kind of lawsuit. Beyond charging them with some kind of malicious misuse of company property....(but not being a lawyer, I don't know what you could charge, nor do I believe that they'd do it if they could). Termination would have been suitable enough, with anything extra--beyond perhaps informal blackballing (ie "you'll never work in this racket again, kid")--amounting to overkill.
I agree the only other thing that could be done would have to be a lawsuit and (while I’m not a lawyer) I believe only the injured party could bring said suit against the involved party, which was George Bush. However, the suit could possibly make George Bush produce his actual military records, which is something he has refused to do.
Bush would have also had to deal with the interview with Ben Barns, who told 60 minutes in an interview that he had recommended that George Bush get preferential treatment to obtain a position in the Tex ANG in 1968. Ben Barnes, was the former Lieutenant Governor of Texas and Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives. By doing nothing and letting CBS take the heat and then just fire the reporter and producer, Bush never had to answer these questions about his service record.
http://www.rathergate.com/)
CBS could have sued, but why it would just added to their already unwanted publicity and a suit against employees would be difficult to prove. It would also look bad to future employees.
Something I noticed that's bad with the BBC is they don't post the date when the article was posted just when the site was last updated. I looked at the comments though and it really disgusted me.
Anyways, to comment on the BBC, to be blunt they are extremely left wing and some could even say anti-semetic. The Israelis have called the BBC the english version of Al-Jazeerez.
Extremely left wing?! It has a liberal bias (you do have to look for it, though) but on the issue of left-right I'd say it is pretty centrist. Although, I suppose I'm operating on UK and European standards :). The BBC's editorial guideline is "Impartiality & diversity of opinion." I think Andrew Marr summed it up nicely when he said, "The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."
I'm really rather intrigued as to why the Israelis (as a group, seemingly) have taken to calling the BBC the British version of Al Jazeera. I don't see terrorists having candid interviews with Hue Edwards on the 10 o'clock news - be interesting, though :xp:.
Actually, there is a lot of stuff to back up the claim that the BBC is the English version of Al-Jazeera. Look no further than the Israeli/Lebanon war. There is a load of stuff that the BBC misrepresented the facts putting it mildly among many other media outlets. I don't really want to get into it in this topic.
Back to topic, this problem isn't exactly a new one, but it seems to have gotten worse more recently than it used to be.
Actually, there is a lot of stuff to back up the claim that the BBC is the English version of Al-Jazeera. Look no further than the Israeli/Lebanon war. There is a load of stuff that the BBC misrepresented the facts putting it mildly among many other media outlets. I don't really want to get into it in this topic.
You can't say "there's a lot of stuff" and then not show me any evidence. It's not that I doubt your word - things like this have happened before to countless (i.e. all) news organisations. But I don't think a series of mistakes (if this really did happen - it was during my "Oh I don't care any more" phase, so I have no idea) causes a news station to be "extremely left-wing." Are all people on the left, for example, in favour of Arabs and those on the right are in favour of the Israelis? I think that's a gross generalisation, to be frank. :)
Your argument contains an allusion that all people on the left are lairs. Unless, of course, I am misinterpreting what you are trying to say.
Oh, and perhaps it would be best if a moderator could move our posts on this matter to the thread about political bias in the media? :)
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/)
This implicates a lot of media organizations, courtesy of Zombietime.
Maybe a mod should transfer this to the bias in the media thread plz.
I'm not saying all people on the left are liars, seriously I know some people at work that are left wing and I don't think they are liars.
If it was a guy trying to use math class to further political agenda for Republicans in elementry school I'd be up in arms about it, and you can bet the mainstream media would be all over it. However this is a left wing group, so I was asking if anyone else had seen anything about this on the mainstream media. Cause this may not have ever been brought into the light here if I hadn't saw the Radical Math story on Fox News, then went out online to see for myself, if the other media outlets aren't reporting on it.
A recent example of bias:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/washpost-leaves-out-party-label-pol-charged-running-brothel.html)
It would actually depend on the how the polls handle mayor political affiliation if I would consider this bias. Some cities do not allow party affiliation for local government as they feel it will hurt them with conventions and grants. In that case I’d say it did not show any bias at all.
historically nonpartisan mayoral contest, is a self-described "lifelong Democrat."
I’d say the last line of the article says it all and yes this a good example of media bias by “Newsbusters” and not the Washington Post.
It would actually depend on the how the polls handle mayor political affiliation if I would consider this bias. Some cities do not allow party affiliation for local government as they feel it will hurt them with conventions and grants. In that case I’d say it did not show any bias at all.
I’d say the last line of the article says it all and yes this a good example of media bias by “Newsbusters” and not the Washington Post.
Not so sure that flies b/c anyone paying attention knew that Koch and Dinkins were Dems and Guilianni and Bloomberg were republicans. I doubt that people in government who are inclined to discriminate on the basis of party affiliation are unaware of what party supports the mayoral candidates that win, nor would the WP be either.
I actually thought I was supporting a Democrat in Houston only to find he turned out to be a life long Republican and another mayor I thought was Republican she turned out to be a Democrat. In city government it has less to do with partisanship or politics and more about what is best for the city. It should be that way on the National scene too.
If he ran as a democrat then the Washington Post should say he was a Democrat, but as they said he was elected to be a nonpartisan mayor thus implying the Democrats are guilty of something because of his actions is no better than saying that Timothy McVeigh was a Republican an thus the Republican are teaching hatred to there children. Or saying Muslim are all guilty for bin Ladin’s actions. Are you and the Newbuster condoning putting political affiliations next to everyone charged or convinced of a crime?
Frankly, whats' good for the goose.... I agree that it would be optimal for all that the side issue of political affiliation not be brought up. But, I guess it's called politics for a reason. Mores the pity. Actually, I don't believe however, that such a broad stroke approach is necessary. When democrats go on about the politics of corruption, I doubt they are saying that every single republican is actually corrupt (or at least would likely to be loathe to admit to such a thing) Just b/c Clinton may have raped someone (according to allegations) doesn't have to mean that all democrats are painted as potential rapists.
Agreed. Of course I missed the big picture. Just by saying he was the mayor of Washington D.C. I assumed he was a Democrat. ;)
The "New Republic" is possibly in trouble for printing stories about attrocities committed by US soldiers in Iraq that never happened. The credibility of the source of these stories are in question even on the basis of basic facts.
If Rush Limbaugh did something like this, he'd lose his job, seriously the liberal left would be calling for his head. Then there is the "Equal Time" Act that the left is trying to have put into place again, okay if they want equal time, how about we see more conservatives on the mainstream media outlets like CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC.
Rush Limbaugh did something seriously illegal and kept his job. I don’t care what political affiliation someone is advocating, as long as they are making their bosses money they keep their job. Beside Rush Limbaugh is not a journalist he is part of the elite entertainment industry that he is always harping against.
How about we see and hear less conservative on FoxNews?
How about we see and hear less conservative on FoxNews?
Sure, so long as there is a corresponding matching increase in conservative on the rest of the networks. Afterall, "fair and balanced" should be a slogan for ALL news networks.
Afterall, "fair and balanced" should be a slogan for ALL news networks.
I don’t want it to be a slogan, but I do what them all strive for being balanced. Saying it is true means nothing.
I don’t want it to be a slogan, but I do what them all strive for being balanced. Saying it is true means nothing.
Define what you mean by balanced? Seriously, mainstream media outlets think they are already balanced what their opinions are is the truth and anyone that disagrees with them are right-wing radical loonies, they couldn't figure out how to be balanced at all.
Afterall, "fair and balanced" should be a GOAL for ALL news networks.
There, fixed. ;)
Define what you mean by balanced? Seriously, mainstream media outlets think they are already balanced what their opinions are is the truth and anyone that disagrees with them are right-wing radical loonies, they couldn't figure out how to be balanced at all.
My opinion of what the definition of balanced should mean for the news media is giving the facts, both the good and the bad. It should not take sides to the left or to the right. When giving each side of a particular argument the media should give equal time and equal voice to both sides. The journalist should not take either side and certainly should not purposely belittle either speaker. The journalist can have personal opinions to the left or right, but they should not become part of the story or the discussion.
I personally don’t believe any of them are balanced, but in fairness most do not make that their slogan. I was always told you did not have to tell people you are honest, if you are truly an honest person they know it. If you have to go around telling them you’re honest you are probably a liar.
I’ve only seen one person in this tread not admit that a news media outlet was not bias. I believe that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, BBC and FoxNews are all bias to one side or the other. Some are just more subtle than others.
I’ve also not seen many mainstream media outlets journalist call other people names. Media professionals calling people disparaging names and attacking them personally usually means their own arguments are weak; they are just rude or they have a serious inferiority complex. It is also unprofessional and if they are getting really angered over a story then they are showing their bias. Even when I agree with their position of the reporter or new commentator, they are still bias if they are becoming personally involved.