I figured this would be better in it's own thread.

And the point that we've all been trying to make is that you need to look for information in less biased places. You've done an admirable job of toeing the Fox News line, but that doesn't make you (or them) right.

In answer to your question, the fact is that the other news agencies have lost all credibility, even some of their own reporters are commenting on it.

Meanwhile, I watched with disbelief as the nation's leading newspapers, many of whom I'd written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page. Personal opinions and comments that, had they appeared in my stories in 1979, would have gotten my butt kicked by the nearest copy editor, were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S.

But what really shattered my faith -- and I know the day and place where it happened -- was the war in Lebanon three summers ago. The hotel I was staying at in Windhoek, Namibia, only carried CNN, a network I'd already learned to approach with skepticism. But this was CNN International, which is even worse.

I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel. The reporting was so utterly and shamelessly biased that I sat there for hours watching, assuming that eventually CNNi would get around to telling the rest of the story … but it never happened.--Media's Presidential Bias and Decline (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=2)

In answer to your question, the fact is that the other news agencies have lost all credibility, even some of their own reporters are commenting on it.You have one biased source saying that other sources are biased and you take it as gospel. You've been duped sir <snipped>

You have one biased source saying that other sources are biased and you take it as gospel. You've been duped sir <snipped>

Actually I haven't been duped because they are both biased the same way.


Anyways I'm gonna pull some conservative sources now:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/justin-mccarthy/2008/02/12/bernard-goldberg-attacks-msnbcs-double-standards)

And a video from a liberal cable news channel that was saved by a conservative blogsite:
Video (http://newsbusters.org/static/2008/10/2008-10-21MSNBCMJ.wmv) -- Newsbusters managed to save this from youtube taking it down, it's MSNBC with Dan Rather (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Rather)

Actually I haven't been duped because they are both biased the same way.So you are admitting that Fox News has a right wing bias? Do you seriously think people will believe a blatantly biased source rather than a more moderate one?

Actually I haven't been duped because they are both biased the same way.Both? Both of what?

Also, if you are aware of Fox News' bias, then just come out and admit that you're an ultra right-wing conservative. Trashing bias with one hand and admitting bias with the other isn't going to do much to help you re-establish your credibility.

HAH, if you admit the news has little to no credibility why are you reading about it on NEWS SITE? Sure, they're focusing on political news, but really... if stations can lie to you about that, then that's just the beginning of what they've already lied about.

My advice to you, don't take the news literal or as fact. Take it as something to guide your research.. Take a story the news runs, and look deeper into it..

Also, if you are aware of Fox News' bias, then just come out and admit that you're an ultra right-wing conservative.

There is a difference between having a bias and dishonest journalism. What I'm talking about goes way beyond a simple slant. If you'll note my first source was a liberal with a liberal bias talking about liberal bias in the media on a liberal news site, I think that's a pretty valid source. This isn't just about bias subconsciously leaking through, this is about actively trying to help a candidate win, reporting bogus stories as fact, etc. I'm going to post up some sources concerning some examples of Journalism going well beyond bias.

Example from 2004 Presidential Election which is talked about on wikipedia:
Rathergate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate)

And more specifically from a wikipedia article concerning the controversy:

Thomas Phinney, program manager for fonts at Adobe Systems, responded to Glennon's statement by saying that the memos could not have been produced with either the IBM Executive or Selectric Composer, which had been suggested as possibilities, due to differences in letter width and spacing.
--Killian Documents Authenticity Issues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_authenticity_issues)

Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13.html)

Example from 2006 talked about on wikipedia concerning Reuters (among others):
The Adnan Hajj photographs controversy (also called Reutersgate) involves digitally manipulated photographs taken by Adnan Hajj, a Lebanese freelance photographer based in the Middle East, who had worked for Reuters over a period of more than 10 years. Hajj's photographs were presented as part of Reuters' news coverage of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, but Reuters have admitted that at least two were significantly altered before being published.--Adnan Hajj photographs controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reutergate)
But this wasn't just Reuters, it also included the Associated Press, New York Times, US News & World Report, Time, Boston Globe, and even Human Rights Watch.
2006 Lebanon War Photographs Controversies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War_photographs_controversies)

I know it's claiming that part of the section's neutrality is disputed (specifically concerning the Ambulences), but I've seen the photos of the Ambulence (actually used them in a report concerning Media bias, I'll try to find them again to post up), so that section is accurate.

An Example of the LA Times in 2008:--Reported on by the Washington Times, Fox News is also covering it.
BOWLING GREEN, OHIO (AP) - Republicans John McCain and Sarah Palin accused the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday of protecting Barack Obama by withholding a videotape of the Democrat attending a 2003 party for a Palestinian-American professor and critic of Israel.

The paper said it had written about the event in April and would not release the tape because of a promise made to the source who provided it.

McCain and Palin called Rashid Khalidi a former spokesman for the Palestinian Liberation Organization, a characterization that Khalidi has denied in the past. Both candidates said guests at the party made critical comments about Israel.
--McCain says newspaper protecting Obama (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/29/mccain-says-newspaper-protecting-obama/)

For some reason this sound really familiar. It is like dйjа vu (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=179354&highlight=media+bias) all over again. :xp:

Even when you are shown Fox News is less than honest at times, you refuse to believe it. Instead you accuse others of misconduct. As such my reply to this tread is still the same as it was in 2007.

For some reason this sound really familiar. It is like déjà vu (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=179354&highlight=media+bias) all over again. :xp:


Heh forgot about that topic, which is from 2007 I might add, maybe the topics can be merged but this is kinda seperate issue because I'm talking about journalistic dishonesty, and not just bias.


Even when you are shown Fox News is less than honest at times, you refuse to believe it. Instead you accuse others of misconduct. As such my reply to this tread is still the same as it was in 2007.

I never said Fox News is perfect, they've made some mistakes before, however they haven't used doctored photos, nor have they used forged documents. Furthermore, Fox News has issued corrections in the past when they've goofed up, they don't just stand there and continue to report something is the gospel truth.

however they haven't used doctored photos,

O RLY? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Photo_manipulation)

'Fair & Balanced - Only if you're a Republican'

I never said Fox News is perfect, they've made some mistakes before, however they haven't used doctored photos, nor have they used forged documents. They have a habit of getting their R and D confused.
Furthermore, Fox News has issued corrections in the past when they've goofed up, they don't just stand there and continue to report something is the gospel truth. No, no, no. This is a gamer forum and we all know that is not true. Remember Mass Effect. :rolleyes:

O RLY? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Photo_manipulation)

'Fair & Balanced - Only if you're a Republican'

Fox & Friends, which is where these pictures are from is a morning show, and not a serious news program. While they talk about news stories they aren't a serious news program, I'll agree the pictures are juvenile but can you honestly tell me a poodle would have a human face?

I'd need to see the context of the program of when these pictures were aired, but having seen the general program that this is referring to, at least one of the pictures was satire.

In June 2004, CEO Roger Ailes responded to some of the criticism with a rebuttal in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal,[124] saying that Fox's critics intentionally confuse opinion shows such as The O'Reilly Factor with regular news coverage. Ailes stated that Fox News has broken stories harmful to Republicans, offering "Fox News is the network that broke George W. Bush's DUI four days before the election" as an example. The DUI story was broken by then-Fox affiliate WPXT in Portland, Maine, although Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron also contributed to the report.
-- From Same Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Photo_manipulation)

Fox & Friends, which is where these pictures are from is a morning show, and not a serious news program. While they talk about news stories they aren't a serious news program, I'll agree the pictures are juvenile but can you honestly tell me a poodle would have a human face?

Doesn't matter one iota if they're a serious program or not - they're broadcast on Fox News, and the presenters and crew are employees of Fox News.

And I'm not on about the poodle picture, i'm talking about the two doctored pictures that are mentioned - so Fox isn't as innocent of using manipulated information or pictures as you claim them to be.

Doesn't matter one iota if they're a serious program or not - they're broadcast on Fox News, and the presenters and crew are employees of Fox News.


Can you give me a date as to when these pictures aired? I'd actually like to see the transcripts of the report.


And I'm not on about the poodle picture, i'm talking about the two doctored pictures that are mentioned - so Fox isn't as innocent of using manipulated information or pictures as you claim them to be.

Okay let me rephrase it, though we could debate whether or not these photos you're showing were actually generated by Fox News all day (not going to confirm or deny because I just don't have the necessary information), has Fox News used doctored images as a method to accuse someone of something? Because Mediamatters which is one of the sources for the wikipedia article on Fox News controversies is funded by George Soros.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaMatters)

Talking Points Memo (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268043,00.html)

But enough of that, the doctored pictures, were any of these photos you mentioned actually used as sources for the actual news story, because the ones I'm referring to were.

And found the link I was looking for
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/)

Can you give me a date as to when these pictures aired? I'd actually like to see the transcripts of the report.

July 2, 2008.

But enough of that, the doctored pictures, were any of these photos you mentioned actually used as sources for the actual news story, because the ones I'm referring to were.

Not that i'm aware of, but you contended that Fox hadn't used any doctored media at all, which is clearly wrong.

July 2, 2008.


And wikipedia's source is: The Globe and Mill (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM). 20080709.wwfox09%2FBNStory%2FInternational%2F&ord=97091756&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true), which apparently you can't access the full article without paying for it.


Not that i'm aware of, but you contended that Fox hadn't used any doctored media at all, which is clearly wrong.

At least I wasn't aware of any time outside of Red Eye which is a comedy take on the news (similar to Steven Colbert only for a more mature audience), that doctored photos were used except to show they were doctored photos.

I should have phrased my statement better, to talk about the fact they haven't used doctored photos as evidence.

I think that both sides of this argument should stop spamming the issue of biased sources to death. I have yet to see any source that isn't biased to some degree. Such is the state of "journalistic integrity" these days, making this relentless defamation of the opposition's sources a very tasteless joke, indeed. :roleyess:

Neither side of this argument has a leg to stand on, IMHO, and as such it is really a moot point. T'would be wise to move on to something else, lest any remaining credibility of the participants in this argument be completely undermined. ;)

Repeat of this thread? Credible Sources for The Debates (http://lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=193361)

Yeah, pretty much. This issue's been beaten to death by both sides, and both sides are dead wrong.

Kind of humorous, in its own sad way. :p

However here is some more recent examples illustrated by nonpartisan groups:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1001/campaign-media)


Finding more information
Slightly more traditional Media:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14982.html)
Ayers' book is old news since it came out in the 1970's. Yes, we know he's an unrepentant domestic terrorist, yes we know he's stomped on the flag, yes we know he's socialist/communist, yes we know Obama hung out with him and learned from him, yes, we know Obama also repudiated Ayers' acts of violence and doesn't hang out with him now. Quit spamming Ayers stuff, please. --Jae

I would think that's pretty damaging.

:¬:
http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p5/Real_AirCooledMan/deadhorse.jpg)

However here is some more recent examples illustrated by nonpartisan groups:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1001/campaign-media)
My favorite parts of this article are:

Much of the increased attention for McCain derived from actions by the senator himself, actions that, in the end, generated mostly negative assessments.
One question likely to be posed is whether these findings provide evidence that the news media are pro-Obama. Is there some element in these numbers that reflects a rooting by journalists for Obama and against McCain, unconscious or otherwise? The data do not provide conclusive answers.
Good find!

Heh, however while they may be nonpartisan and I use the term loosely, a lot of these 'bringing it on himself' simply isn't true.

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/index.html)

Look at the talking points memo for 10/30, it gives a better breakdown as to what I'm referring to.

Media Overall:
57% of McCain stories were Negative
29% of Obama stories were Negative

Newspaper Coverage:
69% of McCain stories were Negative
28% of Obama stories were Negative

NBC
54% of McCain stories were Negative
21% of Obama stories were Negative

MSNBC
73% of McCain stories were Negative
14% of Obama stories were Negative



Fox News
40% of McCain stories were Negative
40% of Obama stories were Negative

He got the numbers from Pew Research

Heh, however while they may be nonpartisan and I use the term loosely, a lot of these 'bringing it on himself' simply isn't true.

So first you tout PRC as a fair source, and then you disregard them because there's a few points in there that don't fit your point?

And if you'd looked at O'Reilly's program, you'd see it says at the bottom the numbers were from the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

So first you tout PRC as a fair source, and then you disregard them because there's a few points in there that don't fit your point?

To clarify I view the research to be fair, I just don't consider the commentary to be fair.


It's a difference between the data and someone analyzing said data, they are more fair than the other media outlets, but they should just stick with the numbers.

Heh, however while they may be nonpartisan and I use the term loosely, a lot of these 'bringing it on himself' simply isn't true.

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/index.html)

Look at the talking points memo for 10/30, it gives a better breakdown as to what I'm referring to.

Media Overall:
57% of McCain stories were Negative
29% of Obama stories were Negative

Newspaper Coverage:
69% of McCain stories were Negative
28% of Obama stories were Negative

NBC
54% of McCain stories were Negative
21% of Obama stories were Negative

MSNBC
73% of McCain stories were Negative
14% of Obama stories were Negative



Fox News
40% of McCain stories were Negative
40% of Obama stories were Negative

He got the numbers from Pew Research
How do all these numbers prove McCain is not 'bringing it on himself'? They say nothing about the content of the articles, which is what would show that he's indeed 'bringing it on himself'.

It's a difference between the data and someone analyzing said data, they are more fair than the other media outlets, but they should just stick with the numbers.
Why, because their analysis gives an unfavorable view of McCain? Is that why they should just 'stick to the numbers'?

And they did the research, so why shouldn't they be allowed to comment on their own work?

How do all these numbers prove McCain is not 'bringing it on himself'? They say nothing about the content of the articles, which is what would show that he's indeed 'bringing it on himself'.


And how do you prove that he is?


Why, because their analysis gives an unfavorable view of McCain? Is that why they should just 'stick to the numbers'?


Actually, it's the fact the media is sitting on quite a few stories about Obama.


And they did the research, so why shouldn't they be allowed to comment on their own work?

Then talk about the numbers and what they sampled, you don't give a subjective analysis like that.

And how do you prove that he is?
For McCain, coverage began positively, but turned sharply negative with McCain's reaction to the crisis in the financial markets. As he took increasingly bold steps in an effort to reverse the direction of the polls, the coverage only worsened. Attempts to turn the dialogue away from the economy through attacks on Obama's character did hurt Obama's media coverage, but McCain's was even more negative.

Actually, it's the fact the media is sitting on quite a few stories about Obama.
Thanks for completely ignoring my question to instead push more irrelevant Obama smears.

Then talk about the numbers and what they sampled, you don't give a subjective analysis like that.
The data do not provide conclusive answers.

Garfield, you're not helping your case. You're actually kind of shooting yourself in the foot.

I think it's pretty obvious to everyone present that most of the major news sources are biased, one way or another. It seems like the logical thing to do is to watch a Conservative-leaning one, and then a Liberal-leaning one. Or Vice Versa.

http://journalism.org/node/13436)

It seems to me Fox News did a far better job.