Media critic Bernard Goldberg has a new book Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right.

He’s identified a new disorder that ails liberals. It’s called FOX DERANGEMENT SYNDROME. He tried to figure out why liberals hate the cable channel and determined that there is no rational reason. So it must be FDS.

Even though FOX is populated by liberals such as Susan Estrich, Lanny Davis and Alan Combs, liberals still hate it. Why?

"All those lefties getting so much time on Fox should make your run-of-the-mill liberals happy, right? But it doesn't. Why?

Two reasons: First, they don't even notice the liberals on Fox, in much the same way that a fish doesn't notice the water he's swimming in. Seeing liberals on the news seems so natural to liberals that it doesn't register as any big deal.

Second, they do notice the conservatives who are debating the liberals. They stick out like the proverbial sore thumb. And their very presence–actually, their very existence–makes liberals mad." This anger leads to a debilitating disorientation," which is made worse by Fox's slogan: "Fair and Balanced."

I think Fox needs to be fumigated with the new, improved, industrial-size FDS*.






*Feminine Deodorant Spray - located in the personal hygiene section

I do tend to notice the 'not so fresh' feeling after watching fox news...

>>>"Even though FOX is populated by liberals such as Susan Estrich, Lanny Davis and Alan Combs, liberals still hate it."

And Geraldo Rivera, Greta Van Sustren and so on. It's mostly because liberals have to have something to hate. They have nothing positive to offer, so their only focus is negative.

Try not to get it in your eyes or use near open flames.

I accidentally used it instead of PAM the other day when making pancakes... big mistake... big mistake!

FOX is not fair and balanced. End of story.

If that's your thing, then it's likely to appeal. I personally don't try that hard to consume less than honest programming.

And there is the fact that FOX viewers are generally mis-informed, by percentage on a given issue, than viewers of most other networks.

I don't hate them, I just have little use for them.

Help, I'm swimming in water!!! I can't see, I can't see!! I'm deranged! I'll never do my own thinking again!

It's just a batch of whining about FOX NOT being a solid news organization coming into play right now.

National networks serve pablum. If you go for that sort of thing, you can pick your favorite flavor and chow down. Some real journalists can be found on television, but only here and there and now and again. Most talking heads are simply "personalities" and not journalists. They serve as wet nurses for the lowest common denominator. *click*

Lemme get this straight.

Fox offers two sides to an issue, while CNN packs their programming proferring a token conservative.

And Fox is the bad guy?

Only in the left's 'bad is good' and 'good is bad' world.

Spin on.

Herb

"Fox offers two sides to an issue"

FOX viewers, by multifold over the other 3 networks, think wmds have been found in Iraq.

Facts get in the way of accurate commentary from the troll.

NewsHour also presents multiple (sometimes more than two) sides of the story, and I don't hear either the right or left calling Lehrer out on being slanted or biased. Why? Because there is actual balance on that show.

MSNBC gets decent marks from the left, though Olbermann rankles the right. Is MSNBC biased? Admittedly, yea, it's left of center.

Fox is a joke because it has left elements simply to help flesh out it's "Fair and Balanced" slogan. And it is only that, a slogan. Herb, your own love of Fox shows that the perspective on the news they present is to your liking i.e. hard right. You are your own proof.

CNN does not have "fair and balanced" as their slogan.

Fox, presents the two sides, most often with more GOP supporters than others.

Fox, often uses people I've never heard of to represent the left perspective. These people are introduced as "democratic strategists" WTF is that?

Fox viewers are misinformed, by percentage, on any given issue than on nearly every, if not every, other network.

Fox makes gross errors and manupulations of fact and opinion often --too often, this is the core reason for the problem with viewers understanding the facts.

I could go on for a very long time.

There is a reason why FOX isn't going to be holding any Democratic debates. This obvious bias does nobody, that does not support the current GOP line, any good, so why bother? Also, the FOX audience is confused and highly accepting of the bias as well. Given their problematic presentation, the idea that viewers would actually gain some viable left-leaning perspective is silly! There are far better venues.

The only people I see really supporting FOX news are those same people trying to convince us the Democratic party is as bad as the GOP currently is, Saddam was involved in 9/11, had WMD's, thinks Osama / Obama is funny, etc...

Yeah, FOX is the bad guy.

Before you go and cry "Bias!" on the other networks, let me just cut it short and remind you that everybody has bias. That's every network, everywhere, without exception. Might as well throw every person in there too.

What we are looking for is presentation where fact and opinion are clearly differentiated. From there, consumers can easily watch a few networks and get the facts right. Then, having a firm grasp of said facts, they then can consider the commentary surrounding them and make their own choices accordingly.

In this, FOX does more harm than good and that's the problem. The fact they have tagged their newstainment production as "fair and balanced" (among other things), is a clear misrepresentation of what one can expect to gain from consuming their media products.

If, they are willing to mislead on that coarse level, how then can one actually make any sense of the programming as a whole?

One doesn't, unless one is looking for pro GOP programming that is entertaining and well produced, which is exactly what FOX does very well.

Get back to me when their viewers are more informed, by way of comparison to the other networks out there. Until then, it's newstainment baby! Well produced, entertaining, etc...

You know that audio interview I wanted to play for you guys? Well the author goes into a little detail about Fox's thinking behind using certain words and phrases.

It's designed to drive liberals nuts. Not to be accurate - but to bother Liberals.

And they win at that.

Neat.

Missing kskd, has a severe case of FDS (Fox Derangement Syndrome).

"The News Hour" is very well balanced. It's an excellent news program, but it's appeal among average Americans is limited.

That's a problem that I only know how to counter one way:

Make damn sure multiple views are presented in an entertaining fashion and work hard to get core facts well represented. Olbermann, Stewart, Colbert, et al. are doing this nicely and providing balance in the newstainment space. Guess what? They all do it, get the ratings, and make sure their viewers are as informed as they can be.

I posted a study here a while back that compared the news content of "The Daily Show" with that of ordinary newscasts. The content was about the same! Despite this, "The Daily Show" is far more compelling than your typical newscast, meaning more people are getting the information than would otherwise happen.

IMHO, this is the path going forward. "The News Hour" is an excellent program, but it's really fucking dull! Can't stand it, and I'm into this stuff --really! (didn't used to be, but hey... times are bad, and they are getting bad because people are not into this stuff!)

FOX lead the way in this slickly produced news programming. They were the first in a lot of areas. They should be recognized for that. The only real problem is their "fair and balanced" slogan. It's a flat out lie that tries to make what is otherwise a fine, but GOP biased, network out to be more than it really is.

That's the beef.

Prior to shows like "The Daily Show" and "Countdown", one could argue for the additional confusion being an artifact of the intense production.

Now that case is blown out with the success of a growing number of shows, all with their bias of course, but with the additional element of actually informing people. Fricking Comedy Central, "Daily Show" and "Colbert Report" viewers are significantly better informed than FOX viewers on EVERY ISSUE.

With all the talent on the FOX network, and the benefit of other programs growing the genre of newstainment, one is left with the conclusion that FOX does not mind distorting the facts to the degree it does, because it has been demonstrated to be completely possible to do what it is they do, and do it well, and inform their viewers while they are at it.

The fact that this does not actually happen is all one really needs to know about FOX news.

***I still think newstainment is a good thing. We could use more of it, with more biases and maybe more niche coverage. It is really hard to get people engaged on matters of society, technology and the law. It's as tough as it is for politics. Newstainment gets it done, and gets it done nicely. Bring it on, but just be honest about it, not pull a FOX and flat out LIE ABOUT IT.

CJ, they totally do! So I pretty much avoid Fox, but for the occasional Bill O'reilly segment. He's just great!

DD --maybe, maybe! I've a fairly big problem with organizations that misrepresent themselves in such a gross manner. Not limited to FOX, BTW.

I do think FOX has a lot of firsts though. Excellent production values combined with often very entertaining presentation that is compelling. They get an A+ for that! Without them, we may well still be seeing a lot of very dull broadcasts that few people care about.

It's not all bad, see the comments I made above on newstaiment.

They should just be honest about it and a lot fewer people would have a lot smaller problem with them in general. However, that would crack the legimate news claim they are working their asses off overtime to somehow preserve.

(won't last, BTW)

Missing kskd, all you've been doing is regurgitating information that is spoon fed to you.

Have ever considered actually watching Fox news? Wouldn't you like to find out for yourself?

Watch Special Report with Brit Hume. I know that is asking a lot.

DD, I've watched a lot of FOX programming!

Most of what I wrote above supports my observations while watching the network.

You see, I could just write:

I think FOX puts on more conservatives per weak liberal permitted on air than any other network. FOX makes a lot of factual mistakes. The Osama / Obama thing and others like it are not funny. I find it hard to remember what the facts were, but it's easier to remember what my favorite FOX personalities thought of them.

But then somebody would post, "where's your proof", or "You just don't watch enough", etc...

So fuck it. I'll just post the good stuff, rather than go through the motions.

I still watch O'reilly because I think he often produces good TV. I don't watch him because I think his opinions matter however. That's the difference.

Brit Hume looks like he's about to tip over. Not a bad program otherwise.

I've got a specific amount of time set aside for television. It's not much frankly. News largely comes from the net, newspapers and radio. My TV time is entertainment time, thus the occasional O'reilly, depending on who he's gonna have on, or who has pissed him off! Prefer John Stewart though, or Olberman in that I'm gonna get a bias I like and be better informed for enjoying it.

Sorry, but the ROI on FOX is generally terrible, all things considered. You go ahead though. If affirmation is what you need, FOX is there for you 24 / 7.

Missing kskd: "Prefer John Stewart though, or Olberman in that I'm gonna get a bias I like and be better informed for enjoying it."

That says it all! You want news to conform to your ideological bias.

Being given firsthand insight into the brain of the sheeple is a gift. Uncomplicated folks need uncomplicated views that are uncomplicated by facts and concrete evidence. It is in the All-American back fence jaw and hair stylist gossip tradition. Not real news mind you, but sensational blurbs meant to provoke simple emotional responses. The magic is that they are presented without inducing further study or analysis on the part of the viewer.

To distract from the paltry offerings in the big picture, they have a constant scroll of annoying subtext. Of course, it has absolutely nothing to do with the story, but serves to further confuse the viewer and make them feel "overwhelmed" by facts. It trots out almost comical headlines with no insight whatsoever. On and on it rolls with the latest muck about the Arab evildoers, the scary minorities, and the wonderful inventions of the magical corporations. Of course, the ever-popular "Terror Alert: Elevated" is mixed in with all the other glorious non sequitors.

The 700 Club is another good place for a thoughtful person to reference. Often, with the peoplebots, knowing what programming is being fed into the unit can give you insight on the future behavior of any given machine. Thus, their actions are predictable, but not preventable. Heck, something as simple as avoiding an argument with a client who lacks critical thinking skills can be augmented by seeing what they were told to believe.

I am sure some folks think they have a "think tank" full of eggheads who study social behavior, manipulate polls and milk the lessons of Nazi and Soviet propaganda, just to make the whole shebang come together. Maybe they do, but I doubt it. That would require more than a little effort, and these shows exhibit very little effort and a whole lot of graphics. Perhaps, this is because the holy nihilists in charge of the big money pile are either killing time before the rapture, or setting the table for the apocalypse. This low rent Ray Bradbury styled brand of television is a natural fit in that scheme of things. Or, it might be just good old fashioned greed and LCD appeal.

If you can stomach the classism, racism and fear mongering that is padded by endless advertisements, even for an hour, you will see that it has some value by giving insight on the uninsightful. Knowing what you are up against can make all the difference. It is a map of the minefield.

I'm with CJ.

Neat.

"That says it all! You want news to conform to your ideological bias."

Yes it does say it all. And you want news to conform to your ideological bias as well. Which is the reason why you and many, many others on the right love to watch Fox.

The issue is not the bias. All news has bias. The difference is that most real news outlets work hard to minimize bias, and don't go around shouting "We're Fair and Balanced!" Fox tacks hard right intentionally yet cries foul when called on their bias, claiming they are "Fair and Balanced - hey, just look at our slogan!"

Agreed with Little & CJ too. This is why I do watch some programming on FOX, just not a whole lot.

DD, you have it exactly right!

The bonus is many of the programs and sources I do consume make the difference between fact and opinion really clear. So, I not only get some affirmation (or not) from my favorites, but get to mull the facts around and think about it myself too. That's the (or not) part. Sometimes the facts presented do not support the commentary very well.

If things are presented in an honest way, that's easy to spot and it's no biggie in general. IMHO, the way it should be.

On FOX, things are not getting presented in an honest way. This is the problem, not the bias in general. So, your average FOX viewer gets their affirmation, just as anyone does, but may or may not obtain a solid enough grasp on the facts to decide if said affirmation is well supported or not.

In short, FOX viewers are being taken advantage of!

Imagine these errors accumulating over time and the damage that might cause in the form of mis-information, or support for people based on incorrect facts. Kind of scary huh?

(I think so)

That's really what this whole conversation is about.

Here's another one for you. Let's say the facts just don't support your typical bias on the right. Those pesky facts make the spin a bit difficult to swallow. Now, a network with honest presentation is gonna have to own up to that, biased or not, and adjust their commentary accordingly, if they are to keep their viewers.

Nobody wants to watch somebody just get it wrong right?

A network that does not present it's mix of facts and commentary in an honest way, DOES NOT HAVE TO DO THIS! So, they can continue broadcasting a biased and incorrect view and the beauty of it is the majority of their viewers won't grok it!

It's sheer genius! I've absolutely no problem giving credit where credit is due, in this regard.

Over time then, these cumulative errors begin to really do some damage in that the level of misinformation, being broadcast at any one time, needs to be fairly high, in order for everything to work.

Now you understand the significance of the often cited metric here, where FOX news viewers are significantly LESS INFORMED, on the issues than regular viewers of other networks.

You seriously gotta think about the harm that's gonna cause once these misinformed people start voting right?

So it's not the bias that matters, it's the clarity of presentation. In particular, the confusion of fact and opinion, combined with just errors, misinforms people, without them really knowing it.

OVER TIME, THIS RESULTS IN THE FOX NETWORK ONLY MAKING REAL SENSE TO THOSE WHO HAVE CONSUMED ENOUGH OF IT TO BE MISALIGNED WITH PHYSICAL REALITIES.

Ever get that wierd feeling when watching other networks DD? You know, that feeling where nothing makes any real sense? Have a hard time laughing at "The Daily Show" maybe?

THINK THE HALF HOUR NEWS HOUR IS ACTUALLY FUNNY?

You too, have consumed too much bad information --enough bad information that it's gonna be very difficult to actually differentiate good info from bad.

This is what cults do to their members, BTW.

(goes back to programming little micro controller for more colors per scan line)

Missing kskd, You like watch programs that reinforce your ideological mindset and your proud of that. Amazing!

By the way, Missing kskd, have you ever written a letter to the editor? Letters published have a 200 word limit. It takes some effort to write concisely and to the point. You should try it some time.

What the heck. If I'm writing too much, scroll it.

There are two matters being considered here:

-the facts

,and

-what we think they mean.

From there, we get accuracy and it breaks down in a similar fashion:

-facts being correctly reported

,and

-said facts supporting the opinion/commentary.

Finally, you've got clarity that manifests itself as the consumers ability to differentiate fact from opinion.

Facts do not have bias. What we think they mean does have bias. How plausable said bias is, depends on the facts and how they support said biased opinion.

I consider all opinion to be biased. If the facts were complete, we would not really need any opinion now would we?

So there is wiggle room in this whole affair and that's politics at the core.

With me so far?

(if so, get a life, but I'm gonna get this out regardless)

FOX is not as accurate as it could be, but everybody makes mistakes. All things being equal, this is not a major deal. eg: CNN hosed up the Osama / Obama bit too.

However, clarity as defined above, is a big deal! This is one's primary tool by which one is able to judge the merit of the broadcast as a whole. This also speaks to trustworthiness as well.

FOX is untrustworthy because it is not clear in presentation, and because of this, it's viewers are far less able to judge the quality of the commentary they are there to consume.

eg: Sometimes John Stewart is just not funny. Why? Because his humor is a stretch (facts do not really support humor premise). One can see the stretch in that the facts presented are clear enough to be differentiated from the humor element of the program.

Hannity is a mess in this regard! His program involves many human interest elements. Lots of emotion, nationalism and religion. No core problem there. However, he is not that accurate and rarely just puts raw facts out there for his audience to consider, without heavy framing and or multiple presentations. He makes it very difficult to differentiate fact from his opinion!

If you take the elements I presented above and apply them to various programs, it's fairly easy to see which ones are not really trustworthy programs.

Note, I did not say biased programs. That's a given.

Consider this also: If we held our news networks to high standards in terms of factual accuracy and clarity of presentation, then bias would not be so much of a problem, would it?

That's it I suppose. Bias is perfectly ok. We all have it, FOX has it, CNN has it, Colbert really has it! No biggie.

Bias that is not plausable, given the facts at hand, is a waste of all of our time. Who actually wants to be misinformed and not know it?

NOBODY.

That's exactly what FOX is in the business of doing. They misinform people to a degree where they then can consume the biased commentary fed to them with no worries.

One is either a tool or not.

If you seriously think FOX news is a solid news organization, you are a tool. That's it. Sorry to not sugar coat it, but there it is. If I've got any of that wrong, by all means let's hash it out. IMHO, it matters.


(got the colors, now it's all about speed!)

I didn't read what you posted. It's too long. I might read it tomorrow. I'm turning off the computer.

Enjoy your cornflakes.

KSKD contributes a great deal more to these discussions than many others, including me. His insights are well thought out, and if they ramble, so damn what! I like them and I would not change his style one iota. If he does not cut up your little four ounce steak and feed you tiny bites, tough. He always brings plenty of meat to the discussion and does not skimp on the fixin's either. Do what adults do with a big meal, cowboy up and dig in. YMMV, but you will learn something. Oh, I forgot, you are a Fox guy, "Home of the Fair and Balanced 4 Ounce Steak." Great BBQ Missing, Thanks.

Bias is not just political. I remember that David Brinkley had a bit of spine and sass, but even his news show on Sunday morning was manipulated. Big sponsors made quite sure that they were painted in a good light, or not mentioned at all, especially in connection to a similar problem by an identical firm. Sam Donaldson had a ranch provided by a sponsor that generated piles of cash. Unfortunately, this sponsor, ADM, now underwrites the News Hour on PBS. This only further erodes their credibility as a single news source. I really loved growing up with Robert and Jim, and I really like Gwen. I have a friend who has a huge -- and somewhat mystifying -- longstanding crush on Margaret. Both Shields and Brooks are morons, but David is sack of hammers kind of stupid. Since the main underwriters also include Chevron -- a company that once boasted a tanker called, "Condoleezza Rice" -- my skepticism is not going to ebb any time soon.

I do not get my news from any single news source. I compare reports of regional concern from regional outlets, national concern from regional and national outlets, and international concern from regional, national and international outlets. I want as many points of view as I can find on any given topic. I am a researchaholic, and will not settle for a snippet. I too, am a steak and steak kind of information gatherer. I like to see how much, or how little any given outlet covers a story. Newspapers, broadcasters, archives, blogs and sometimes even governments can be fine sources to find things out. I do resent having to do the reporters' jobs for them, but for now, at least I can still find enough facts to form an opinion.

LOL!!! @ Randy.

Hey, he came here and just asked for it. Seriously, after all we've been through here on FOX, that post was nothing more than a "Spank me hard, I'm feeling like I need some attention!" sign, stuck right there where everybody can see it. I'm here to help.

Started to write out a college exercise I did once, but I'm not gonna. (back to the little micro controller)

Thanks Littlesongs! For better or worse, my style here is my style here. I doubt I could change it if I wanted to. It is what it is.

I see DD is acting like our president. He doesn't like to read (My Pet Goat being the exception). One wonders if he read his entire cut and paste?

At any rate, this is a discussion forum. DD did a post and run. Cluck cluck cluck.

The sheer volume of rants on this topic confirms that Fox indeed rankles liberals who don't like giving up their leftist monopoly on the news.

Herb

Of course it's not just about volume. A major part of the problem with FOX is somewhat subtle and takes some text beyond, "FOX sucks". Rather than just say, "FOX sucks", or "FOX is not trustworthy", etc... It is better to just say it. DD tried this, now you are trying it.

As far as monopoly on news goes, I'm sorry but I just don't see that. There is a lot, not being regularly reported and it's matters that affect both sides. The traditional media, in general, has plenty of issues, both left and right.

My big complaint with FOX surrounds their authoritative claims and dishonest representation of their product. NOBODY SHOULD BE SUPPORTING LIARS.

Your attempt to equate volume with just rage, hate, or a rant of sorts, is another in a long line of slippery and less than accurate dodges.

Instead of picking on me for expanding on the inaccurate and poorly represented FOX news service, why not detail how and why I am wrong huh?

"The traditional media, in general, has plenty of issues, both left and right."

Yeah, right. With over 90% of reporters voting democrat, you can say that with a straight face?

"NOBODY SHOULD BE SUPPORTING LIARS."

Gee, I wonder why liberals fall over themself to defend Mr. Clinton, then?

Herb

Good grief Herb!

We've been through the whole media problem bit not long ago. At that time we concluded there were enough outlets, present for both sides to be heard. The media in general has problems --pretty serious ones that impact all of us.

Clinton has nothing to do with it. FOX lies about it's programming period. That's not what a solid news organization does.

It's just not that hard.

Ok.

If you're saying Fox lies, why turn such a blind eye when it comes to the NY Times and their made up stories....or CNN and their left-leaning hacks?

Your selective outrage is no less alarming.

Herb

Thank God I don't have cable TV. What a waste of time.

Perhaps, but FOX-TV spins the news to a point where viewers rush to re-elect an idiot. That concerns us all.

Herb, who's turning a blind eye? IIRC the story-maker-upper got canned.

Or are you upset that one bad apple hasn't spoiled the entire paper-of-record barrel?

As for Faux "News" bias, I had occasion to watch the FNC the other day, and here's what I saw:
They were fearmongering about the drug-resistant-TB guy. Of course I can't quote directly, but the basic implication was that there was some crazy guy, who *knew* he had drug-resistant TB before he left home (false), who was being criminally irresponsible and trying to start an epidemic to infect you and your children with TB. They made no mention of facts such as how he was unaware of the drug-resistant nature of his infection until after he was in Europe and that at the stage of infection he was in, he had a very low chance of communicating the disease, or that the reason he was so intent on flying was because he was *getting married*, not because he was a nutcase trying to start an epidemic(and these are facts that I learned immediately after I CHANGED THE CHANNEL to CNN).

It was very clear from the commentary being made that they were intentionally trying to promote fear at the expense of facts.

This is not an isolated incident, this is the FNC Standard Operating Procedure.

Missing KSKD,
Can you cite a source when you claim Fox News viewers are less informed than viewers of other networks?

Before Fox News came around, no major news outlet hired commentators who would criticize the ACLU, call out judges who defy the will of the people, and generally reflect the viewpoints and values of the traditionalists in America. It still surprises me that many on the left are so afraid of the speech coming from Fox News.

By the way, the coverage of individual stories on fox News is thorough and fair in the context of the hard news reporting. Editorially, they are conservative. I am critical of their use of graphics and sensational story titles, though.

http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

From that source:

"The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions. These variations cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographic characteristics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the demographic subgroups of each audience."

Here is a similar one, comparing regular Daily Show and Colbert viewers with others

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=319

The significance here is clarity of presentation allowing consumers to differentiate fact from opinion.

The full PDF here: http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/319.pdf

Finally, a very interesting study that supports the idea that newstainment might, in and of itself, not be a bad thing. I frankly agree with this idea, having reconsidered this over the last 5 years.

http://www.oregonmediainsiders.com/node/772

I have a copy of the study, cited in this brief opinion article I wrote on OMI, but am not allowed to disclose it's contents just yet. It's not a biggie, in that there really isn't anything else new, only the supporting information.

Looks like some of it is online. http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/4159.html

Valid critique of the ACLU is actually difficult. A lot of what you hear is cherry picking. What you don't hear on FOX are the ACLU cases that align well with it's critics.

All the ACLU does is defend your freedoms, whatever you think they are. This means a fundementalist, traditionalist, progressive, etc... all can make use of the ACLU, if they believe their freedom is being infringed. They exist to empower ordinary people to bring court cases that would otherwise not be considered due to the economic resources necessary. This is a service to all Americans.

It's also something that can and does piss every one of us off. Think about it.

FOX, does not portray the ACLU in this manner. It's highly likely this is done because a fair number of conservative groups are working very hard to legislate choices for others. Of course, the ACLU is gonna be involved in checking this.

It's complex enough to marginalize the one sided coverage typical of FOX. Sorry.

As for the judges, it's an interesting dilemma. On one hand, we have the law. It is supposed to be the last word. On the other, we have people who do not recognize the law in this fashion, defering to their own authority instead.

This too is a conflict, similar to that found with the ACLU.

Generally, those upset about activist judges, really are just bitching about decisions they don't agree with. It is rare to see these same people up in arms about a decision that favors them, though the problem is the same.

This is bias.

You are happy to have a network that speaks to your bias. That's cool, but it's less than honest if said network is to be represented as fair and balanced.

Really, what's happening is that a percentage of us don't think things are fair, and believe what FOX is doing brings balance. This is quite different from how FOX represents themselves and does marginalize them as an objective and even accurate news source, which was my point.

shane, sources have been cited in this very forum showing the percentage of FOX-TV viewers believing that WMDs have been found in Iraq being multifold higher than all the other TV networks viewers.

Use the search function to find it.

IMO, either FOX-TV slants the news to lead their viewers into believing something that is not factually correct OR FOX-TV's method of presenting the news appeals to uneducated or ignorant people unable or unwilling to form their own interpretation of the news.

"Valid critique of the ACLU is actually difficult."

Really?! Let me have a crack at it! Here goes:

I DON'T think the ACLU should threaten schools that mention "Christmas Break" on their websites. Thank God we have the ACLU to protect people from the message of peace and good will brought about by the Federal Holiday of Christmas!

you see. That wasn't very difficult.

Beyond that, my point is that I don’t remember anyone even telling the public about the activities of the ACLU before O’Reilly started doing it on Fox News. If nothing else, there is a balance created by the editorial polarities of Fox News versus some other major news outlets.

Maybe so.

Did you hear about their many other cases, and not just the ones that deal with seperation of church and state?

And that speaks to balance again doesn't it?

Seriously, if there is little coverage of the ACLU then it's operating under the radar for all sides. There is a case for this not being ok, and I would agree with that. I personally believe we should get a lot more detailed coverage of what the ACLU does. Many people would be shocked at some of the cases they have won and the freedoms preserved. Most of us would be pissed off at some of them too. Comes with the service they provide to the American people.

However, operating under the radar is balanced for all sides. No coverage means no coverage right?

So, FOX decides to highlight the ACLU, but they really only highlight those cases that happen to resonate with people who self-identify in a manner similar to you. (that's not meant to be a bad thing, just a statement toward a greater point)

For what it's worth, that's just not fair and balanced. It's biased. I'm ok with that, but not under the fair and balanced slogan, as presented by FOX. It's not honest.

To get that balance back now, we need more coverage of the ACLU in general, not just those cases that resonate with a specific set of people, whose ideologies closely align.

So, where is this coverage? It sure is not on FOX, which nicely deflates their fair and balanced claim. The ACLU has cases on file many right leaning people would be happy with. These are not generally covered by entities serving right leaning people because they would marginalize the ACLU is bad claim. Also, the ACLU gets in the way of may efforts by those on the right to legislate moral and religious choices for the rest of us.

That's the real reason why so many on the right villify the ACLU. Go read their case log some times. Even though they see constant attacks from those on the right, they run the cases that might benefit them anyway.

Getting back to FOX... FOX really hammers on the ACLU, while coverage of their many cases has improved somewhat, but not by the same amount.

We now are in a condition where balance is poor, where the ACLU is concerned.

I do happen to support the ACLU in many of it's cases involving religion and public schools. Public school is not the same as church school, home school, private school. As such, it needs to be neutral where religion is concerned, because it's funded on the public dime. I don't want to pay for religious advocacy of any kind. That is a private affair, that does not involve the public dime at all.

Frankly, if there were not so much pushing of religion, we would not see people pushing back and little transgressions like mentioning "Christmas Break" would go on without anyone really being worried about it.

However, we've got a significant percentage of people in this nation claiming it to be a Christian one, and they are pushing that everywhere they can with every dollar they can. If you go back to the origins of this movement, and look at the ACLU cases filed, there is a direct relationship between increased efforts to nationalize religion and the number of anti-religion cases filed.

These cases are filed because peoples rights are being infringed. They are won, more often than not, because our law clearly defines religion as a private thing and not a government thing or public thing. Again, sorry, but that is the law of the land.

In this case, the ACLU is seen as bad for you and good for me. At least go dig a little deeper than the ACLU is bad and FOX says it's bad, so that's ok.

We don't agree on the ACLU. That's ok. However, FOX bringing your side of things to light, without also recognizing mine is again, just not fair and balanced is it?

One more point on the ACLU.

If, left leaning people were to start repressing religion, instead of just working hard to maintain the line between government and private people, then right leaning people would see the ACLU go to bat for them the same way they have always done, and will continue to do.

Remember, it's all about defending your freedoms, whatever you think they are.

This is not a right or left thing, but an empowerment of the people thing. I know you don't like them, largely because they have won a lot of cases that have prevented others from advancing religion into the government.

Tough titty. Religious advocacy is a private thing, not a public thing. So, if anybody wants to get the word out, they need to do it with their own dollars, or their supporters dollars, not public dollars. It's not a hard thing.

However, should the reverse occur, you may well find them handy some day.

yep, many people hate the ACLU until THEY find themselves marginized by something and they'll find the ACLU there to help them.

The ACLU would serve no purpose if they started judging things as Shane suggested. EVERYBODY is treated the same.

Sorry, back to Fox:

Fox News Gives Iraq War Less Attention
Jun 10, 12:18 PM (ET)
By DAVID BAUDER

NEW YORK (AP) - On a winter day when bomb blasts at an Iraqi university killed dozens and the United Nations estimated that 34,000 civilians in Iraq had died in 2006, MSNBC spent nearly nine minutes on the stories during the 1 p.m. hour. A CNN correspondent in Iraq did a three-minute report about the bombings.

Neither story merited a mention on Fox News Channel that hour.

That wasn't unusual. Fox spent half as much time covering the Iraq war than MSNBC during the first three months of the year, and considerably less than CNN, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The difference was more stark during daytime news hours than in prime-time opinion shows. The Iraq war occupied 20 percent of CNN's daytime news hole and 18 percent of MSNBC's. On Fox, the war was talked about only 6 percent of the time.


The independent think tank's report freshens a debate over whether ideology drives news agendas, and it comes at a delicate time for Fox. Top Democratic presidential candidates have refused to appear at debates sponsored by Fox. Liberals find attacking Fox is a way to fire up their base.

"It illustrates the danger of cheerleading for one particular point or another because they were obviously cheerleaders for the war," said Jon Klein, CNN U.S. president. "When the war went badly they had to dial back coverage because it didn't fit their preconceived story lines."

Fox wouldn't respond to repeated requests to make an executive available to talk about its war coverage.

So how to explain the divergent priorities? Different opinions on what is newsworthy? A business decision?

A mere coincidence?

Fox News Channel viewers argue that their favorite network is simply the most fair. Fox has long objected to suggestions that its newscasts go through a conservative filter. Surveys have shown its audience is dominated by Republicans.

There are no similar differences in priorities among the broadcast evening-news programs, where Iraq was the top story between January and the end of March. NBC's "Nightly News" spent 269 minutes on Iraq, ABC had 251 and CBS 238, according to news consultant Andrew Tyndall.

Another story that has reflected poorly on the Bush administration, the controversy over U.S. attorney firings, also received more attention on MSNBC (8 percent of the newshole) and CNN (4 percent) than on Fox (2 percent), the Project for Excellence in Journalism found.

Tim Graham of the conservative Media Research Center, said Fox has always claimed to report from an American perspective and to not follow the pack. While Graham said he may have questions about the PEJ's methodology, he doesn't dispute the results.

His group published its own study last year about the content of coverage. Fox didn't have its head in the sand; there were more negative stories about what was happening in Iraq than positive. But his group's view was that Fox was more balanced while CNN and MSNBC were relentlessly pessimistic. Between May 15 and July 21 of last year, Fox aired nearly twice as many stories about successes in Iraq as CNN and MSNBC combined, he said.

Most coverage of Iraq focuses on what gets blown up, he said.

"The problem we have with the media elite is that they clearly see Fox as pandering to an audience and they don't see CNN as pandering to an audience," Graham said. "That's where I think the double standard sets in."

While polls say its size is diminishing, there's clearly an audience that resists the general tenor of war coverage. GOP presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani was applauded during last week's debate when he wondered aloud what would happen if the American war effort succeeds over the next few months. "Are we going to report that with the same amount of attention that we would report the negative news?" he said.

Klein disputed the idea that CNN doesn't give a complete picture of what is happening in Iraq.

"Certain folks don't want to see any bad news," he said. "It's our job to report all of the news."

The project's findings surprised MSNBC chief executive Dan Abrams, who has been pushing his network to concentrate on politics and inside-the-Beltway issues lately.

"I'm not going to get on a high horse and judge our competition based on the numbers," he said. "We are looking for the right balance."

Fox's business interests may depend on less negative news about Iraq.

If Fox's audience is dominated by Republicans who are disgusted about hearing bad news on Iraq, it would stand to reason that you'd want to feed them less of it. Bill O'Reilly touched upon that idea on the air one night last December, telling viewers that the lowest-rated segment of his show the previous night was when Iraq was discussed. Ratings jumped at talk about Britney Spears, he said.

The danger is whether those concerns eat away at journalistic credibility.

They're a news network, said CNN's Klein, "so it is surprising that they're not covering the biggest story in the country and the world."

The Project for Excellence in Journalism steered clear of questions about what its findings proved. "We just wanted to tell people that it does make a difference where you go for the news," said the group's Mark Jurkowitz.

So with less on-air attention being paid to Iraq during the first few months of the year, what filled the void for Fox? PEJ's report said the network gave the death of Anna Nicole Smith significantly more air time than its rivals.
---


EDITOR'S NOTE - David Bauder can be reached at dbauder(at)ap.org

quote from above:

"PEJ's report said the network [FOX] gave the death of Anna Nicole Smith significantly more air time than its rivals."

"FOX bringing your side of things to light, without also recognizing mine is again, just not fair and balanced is it?"

CNN brings the left side to light without fair recognition of conservative views.

So why focus on Fox, and give CNN a pass? Given the sheer volume of liberal posts on this one topic, it's clear that the left is absolutely terrified of Fox's fair and balanced coverage.

If there was nothing to Fox, you guys would simply name call as is your wont. Your being so alarmed is particularly telling.

Hand wring on.

Herb

Ham-fisted handwringing as well, Herb. It cheeses them that Fox News is not only the top-rated cable news channel, but is Number 5 in all of basic cable.

Point well made, Magic_eye.

It reminds me of the dominance of conservative talk radio...when it comes to addressing issues of importance to Americans, the left comes up short. So they have to try an end run by pushing their agenda using leftist judges, Hollywood morals and pinko teachers.

Herb

PEJ's report said "the network [FOX] gave the death of Anna Nicole Smith significantly more air time than its rivals."

troll sez: "when it comes to addressing issues of importance to Americans, the left comes up short."

I rest my case.

CNN does not make a fair and balanced claim, nor does it confuse it's viewers with an aggressive mix of fact and opinion, difficult to sort out.

That is the problem with FOX news. The bias they choose to air is not the problem, only their dishonest representation of it.

As for talk radio, leftie talk is growing nicely. Give it 5 years and it will be far more balanced than it currently is. BTW, NONE OF THE LEFT LEANING SHOWS do what FOX does. In fact, that's an excellent comparison, now that you bring it up Herb.

Talk radio is is real heavy on the right. Conservative views dominate right now. So, those of us on the left think there should be some balance. Now there are programs and a willing audience that is growing. All is good for both sides as an increase in talk radio listeners in general is good for radio, good for all parties, good for hosts, etc...

FOX is doing for television what progressive radio is doing. Again, all good, but for one little difference!

FOX is lying about what they are doing, and working very hard to make their presentation difficult to validate, in terms of facts supporting the opinion (bias).

Again, these are the issues, not the political bent of the network.

Further, I submit the rightie bias is significantly more difficult to pull off in a solid way. Why? Because the facts often do not support the opinion well. Thus, the need for a distinct lack of clarity. It's often necessary to cherry pick facts to better support a lot of the crap the GOP is pulling right now.

On the left side of the dial, most all hosts spend plenty of time sourcing their facts, making damn sure their listeners can view them so they can make their own judgements as to the merits of the opinion portion of the program. This is a stark contrast to most of conservative talk radio, from what I've heard.

(And I like talk radio. Have listened for years because I like the format --even if I don't agree.)

Some hosts are, in fact, regularly being honest about the company they keep on the AM dial. Because of said company (Rush, Hannity, et al.), they encourage a culture of mistrust and verification. Read your material. Listen to the program for entertainment, links to solid information, hear various opinions, etc... but do your reading and make up your own mind.

It's a racket --and it's genius too!



Another thing: I wrote we have media problems in general. There are a lot of stories not being reported that are of concern to both parties, but not well aligned with big corporate media interests. This is a seperate problem and all Americans are suffering because of it. That's what I meant above, just to be clear.

"As for talk radio, leftie talk is growing nicely."

It is?

Absolutely.

We've three networks running solid programs now. Not all shows are tied to the AAR, own a network model. I think that's been changed anyway.

If you look at the growth curve, it's an upward trend. Solid hosts are producing solid snows, equal to anything produced to date. Talk is talk, and the only real factors limiting lefty talk right now happens to be industry expectations and bias against the idea of it and lack of awareness on the part of potential listeners.

People, like me, picked up on it right away because we were listening to talk radio already. Having the additional viewpoint only adds to the pool of potential listeners, with some shifting one way or the other, or just trending both.

New listeners are coming in from ADS in left leaning publications, mouth to mouth, streaming, Internet / Blog tie-ins, etc...

Takes time to build a machine. Look at how long it took conservative talk to reach the point it's at today. We've got a lot of great talent on the left. They produce great radio, there is no reason why people won't listen, and there is clearly room on the dial for both, particularly on the AM dial.

Finally, the nation is divided essentially right?

That means a solid percentage of us are sitting on our side, with another chunk that can and does swing, depending on their issue.

That's a freaking huge audience, roughly equal to the audience currently listening to conservative shows.

Over the next 5 years, not only will talk expand into the untapped left leaning audience, but it will see more attention on the FM dial --and that's for both sides, and likely a few other views as well.

It's a great medium. Timely, engaging and relevant every day. It's hard to top talk as far as radio potential goes. Adding lefties to the mix only improves the medium for everybody.

"Solid hosts are producing solid snows"?

As in snow jobs?

ouch!

Oh well, you get the idea...

"If you look at the growth curve, it's an upward trend."

HA!

What other direction is possible, once scare america went bankrupt?

Herb

Who cares about that.

The number of hosts, level of talent, and most importantly, pool of potential listeners is as high as it is for the already established conservatives.

Look at two extremes:

Randi and Rush.

(I think those two would make an excellent MTV Celebrity Death Match episode)

Both have solid radio talent. Both feature well produced programs. Both appeal to the extremes. Both have been on air for a long time, are seasoned, have streaming listeners, etc...

Love 'em, hate 'em, disagree, agree, both produce great talk radio programs right?

That's my point. Since the nation is divided roughly into thirds, with both left and right extremes and a more rational middle that varies in size, depending...

The pool of listeners for both extremes is roughly equal, with the middle of the road listeners likely tuning around depending on a lot of things.

Completely viable.

Demand is there, simply because there are people not well served by having only one view on the air. That means growth is there, and it's happening just as it should.

Again, this is great for talk in general anyway. Increasing the overall pool of potential listeners means more potential AD revenue, more stations, more demos, etc... All sides benefit, and I'm a fan of talk radio in general.

Also, the growth of left leaning talk is gonna open up the doors for more middle of the road hosts as well. That's going to considerably improve the overall level of discourse in general.

This too is a good thing, no matter where we all stand.

Frankly, the only people worried about this are those that really need one view to be dominant. If one is secure in their ideology, there should be no worries about the talk medium growing and improving in this fashion right? If a given ideology is defensible, it will stand nicely against the improved diversity. If not, well... maybe it shouldn't if you think about it.

Maybe we will see both Randi and Rush somewhat marginalized in the face of more rational hosts in the future. Not a bad thing either actually. Or, they might tone it down somewhat and compete better too. Either way, it's no biggie.

"The sheer volume of rants...confirms that Fox indeed rankles liberals."

JHC on popsicle stick, Herb. Are you that deluded to actually believe that anybody is actually "rankled"? Good grief, check your ego at the door.

Nobody gives a poop. Posters are saying, and providing proof, that Fox is not a good place to get the full story. If you want to keep watching because it fits your view, we (I) couldn't care less.

But I was wondering what Anna Nicole's bazoom size was, er, is...do you remember that factoid?
I think it was on the little moving thingy on the bottom of the screen. For weeks.

I'm pretty sure FOX won some goofy tech award for that damn thing, and some of their other technical production efforts.

"Are you that deluded to actually believe that anybody is actually "rankled"?"

Oh really?

"...FOX is lying..."

"We now are in a condition where balance is poor, where the ACLU is concerned."

"I think Fox needs to be fumigated..."

"They were fearmongering about the drug-resistant-TB guy."

Yeah, right. If the left were any more rankled, they'd have a stroke.

Herb

Maybe you'll stroke out HerrB. You're the only one with your undies in a bundle enough to go cut-n-pasting. Breathe. Or at least huff a can of FDS with your Carlo Rossi.

My, Mrs. Merkin. I don't happen to drink Carlo Rossi, but you're mighty judgmental among those working class Americans who do. Many of them are likely democrats, as well. Good for you that you're so much better than those OTHER people.

Herb

Thanks for noticing.

Meanwhile thanks also for pointing out that YOU don't drink it either, Mr. Hypocrite. I'd have you over for some Dow and Taylor ports that I've had stashed for 20 years (70's-80's vintages) or some Petrus or Lafitte-Rothchilds or some of the other fine stuff I scooped up/saved for when I managed a state wine/liquor store in Utah, but it would be no fun and you hate the French.

Also, I'm not actually "among those working class Americans" anymore, as I don't have an income-producing job; I'm a SAHM, remember? I do get a nice check from the Spirit Mountain Casino gaming dividends, but it doesn't cover the cost of raising a child.

My Native American grandma (R) who lived to 94 alone in her own big house, loved one glass of the Carlo every night during McNehl-Leher News Hour (sp?) and Blazer games and Lawrence Welk. No matter that it was a "big gulp"-size cup with ice, she was one sharp cookie till the end. And she never, ever watched Fox News.

I've a father in law, doing about the same with the wine. He's not a FOX fan either. Calls it the Fear and War Mongerers network!

I think it's funny.

FDS????

Someone once told me that it was better to come home with lipstick on your collar than FDS on your breath!

You're dead either way, so pick your poison.
;-)

"Meanwhile thanks also for pointing out that YOU don't drink it either, Mr. Hypocrite"

Right. The difference is that I wasn't belittling those who do.

Herb

Read it again. I wasn't "belittling" others, just you.

"Or at least huff a can of FDS with your Carlo Rossi."

Right.

Herb

You still don't get it, do you?

Read my above post. Slower.

Ha!

I get to say it: "FOX lies". The burden otherwise has not yet been met!

Damn, that feels good. Almost as good as "Bush Sucks" and that burden otherwise also has not yet been met!

For those struggling with this, here's the roadmap. It won't be easy, but you can do it. I've got faith and solid facts on my side!

1. Denial

Some of you are here. This is a real tough one, the first of 5 steps that make you stronger. You really gotta want it to get past this one though. Work hard, think deep, ask yourself if all the pain is really worth it.

(it isn't, but you've gotta get there. Let's us know how we can help!)

2. Anger. Why, oh why was I so off track? Dammit, I should not have to go through this crap. How come I didn't come to my senses sooner?

(Go ahead and get this one out. For me, it's the funnest of the stages because it really feels good after dealing with this)

3. Barganing. Ok, so it only feels good for a while. There is a strong temptation to go back and forget the whole thing, but having gone this far, is lying to your own self really worth it?

(it's not)

4. Depression. Dammit, it's the distance or just plain failure now. Still some tough work and hard feelings to work through. Go find a friend, do some fun stuff, indulge. It helps.

5. Acceptance. The home stretch baby! You are there and man, what a high! You did it, all is good and you are now stronger than you were before. Doesn't it feel just great to look back at the others, struggling and realize you are no longer one of them?

2008.

I can hardly wait to witness the tremendous blowback against democrats, especially given the left's pathetic inability to mount a credible alternative to Mr. Bush, even with assistance from their lackeys in the press.

And since you guys can't get your act together to foil a president with these kind of approval ratings, it's clear you offer no alternative at all. On top of that, you even sold out what was once your core support, big labour.

In the meantime, Mr. Bush can continue to veto all your bad bills. I hear the stem-cell legislation will be DOA, just like the left's chances in 2008.

Dream on.

Herb

Who are you kidding?

The Democratic field is solid! Our main problem is too many to choose from!

It's way too early to be judging that stuff.

It has been noted how you didn't refute the well presented and solid information that supports "FOX Lies". Same story with "Bush Sucks" too. All you've got are threats and (hollow) chest thumping.

Solid? Hillary who has over 50% of the electorate say they sont vote for her.

Obama, a guy with no experience, that may very well be a closet muslum extremist.

Kerry, Gore

"Obama, a guy with no experience, that may very well be a closet muslum extremist."

WTF? There's just as much evidence to say the same thing about you Nwokie.

You worried about that cult that Romney is involved in too?

"There's just as much evidence to say the same thing about you Nwokie."

Classic liberal strategy. Trash N' Bash™ a veteran.

Way to go. And you guys wonder why the public believes you hate the troops?

Herb

Herb, you're hilarious. I didn't say that Nwokie was a Muslim extremist. I said that there was just as much evidence to make that accusation against Obama as there was against Nwokie - in both cases, zero.

It gets tiring having to constantly explain every post to you.

And I'm waiting for you to come down hard on Nwokie, a veteran who understands having respect for America's democratically elected leaders, for trashing and bashing a U.S. Senator.



I'm still waiting...

Thats why politics is so much fun.
A political race, at least at this level, should show how well the candidate can handle hard ball politics. After all if you cant stand up to the Fox network, how you gona stand up to al queda?

Or for a republican, if you cant stand up to CNN how you gonna stand up to al queda.

President Bush took every rumer and innuendo the demos could throw, and still won.

troll sez: "2008. I can hardly wait to witness the tremendous blowback against democrats,"

This is the same troll that predicted a GOP landslide last November and ridiculed anyone suggesting otherwise. The troll is pdxradio's least credible poster.

Blowback. That's the new one. I like it.

Man, how can I get on the mailing list that announces the " word of the week " to Republicans. I'm not kidding. It pops up all at once. I mean sure, it is presented as organic. But it's not. It suddenly everywhere. And NEVER in a positive or affirming way towards Democrats. It's Cabal this week. Blowback is to be used from the 10th through the last weekend in June. Then begin to use Cuba references as much as possible. July will be " Codify " month. Get your banners printed early.

It's bizzare. Almost cult-like. Do I have to kill a goat to get on the mailing list?

Dealing with FOX is easy, just ignore them and let them marginalize themselves.

Remember, there is a reason why they were avoided for debates.

They and their supporters are whining huge too!

For the record, it was Edwards and Obama who decided to do this standing up. Their leadership was soon noted and the rest follows from there.

>>>"just ignore them"

Certainly, just like everyone else is doing as they switch to MSNBC.

"Dealing with FOX is easy, just ignore them..."

We won't hold our breath waiting for that to occur on this board.

You guys on the left can't help yourselves.

Herb

Uranus called. They want you back on your own planet.

LOL!!!

Herb, I think you are confusing ignoring FOX news, with correcting poor advocacy for it being worthy of note.

I do ignore FOX, but for the occasional show already mentioned. I don't however ignore people, claiming they are a solid news service, that is fair and balanced, when there is no support for this notion.

Bring the support and I'm quite happy to reconsider that view; otherwise, you are not doing anybody any favors by claiming FOX news is fair and balanced.

And this too played out in the political arena recently. The Dems ignored FOX, a bunch of people spoke up and called foul. That was nicely rebutted and here we are today, with a nice gain in the number of people introduced to the idea that FOX really is spelled GOP.

Cheers!

"Bring the support and I'm quite happy to reconsider that view.."

Sorry, you're so left-leaning as to have no credibility in judging what is and isn't fair and balanced. That's like asking the president of Iran to weigh in on Israel's government.

You guys on the left just can't stand the fact that you've forever lost your news monopoly and it isn't coming back. To add insult to injury, Fox is kicking CNN and MSNBC's fannies all over the place. Face it, the American public is no longer buying what the left is peddling.

Herb

But they are buying Fox version? How is that any better?

no credibility in judging...

Why not say where I have it wrong, instead of picking on me personally?

lost your news monopoly

I don't think we have one!

BTW, plenty of people, who know a lot more about these things than either of us do, say FOX is not fair and balanced. I happen to agree, but I did cite my sources and explained how I arrived here.

You did not.

I just don't buy the " You guys have had propaganda all to yourselves for too long. We want a piece of that pie now too - so suck it! " as somehow noble.

Me neither.

Violates mama's common sense rules #3 & 7

"two wrongs don't make a right" (yeah, I know there is some fun to be had with that one)

"the ends don't justify the means".

--KSKD's mom, repeatedly over the years.

"Why not say where I have it wrong.."

Fair enough.

Look, if the left was garnering much support for anything right now, why can't you guys get the 2/3 to over-ride a lame duck's vetos?

I'll tell you why. Because even though Mr. Bush has low approval ratings right now, there is even less support for the non-plans, or worse than non-plans the democrats throw out there.

My evidence is that the left can't even muster enough support to beat an unpopular lame duck president. Riddle me that, Batman [the Adam West version, of course].

Game...set....match.

Herb

Uhhh because the Democrats are worse? Is that the answer? So by comparison, you are right. President Bush LOOKS great.

But isn't.

You win. Game. Set. Match.

Personally, I wouldn't be bragging about it - but hey. Victory is what motivates you. Results don't.

...and where do I have it wrong with FOX?

That IS the question.

Oh and nevermind the rest of the planet. It's ALL about Republicans having a stranglehold on being 4% higher in polls than Democratically led congress. I mean, case closed. No reason to even CONSIDER other points of views or give ANY weight to policies that have effect on say - oh I don't know - EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD.

Myopic. That's the word of the week for Democrats to call Republicans. So let it be written. Amen.

Need I remind you that:

1. Mr. Bush was not my choice in the primary.
2. I do not agree with Mr. Bush on some issues.
3. I'm a Nixon man.

So please don't think that to me it's all about winning. It is about working with the best plans. So far, the democrats have abandoned ship.

And how pathetic must the democrats be, to be continually bested by an unpopular, lame duck? You're defending THEM?

Herb

This just in:

Despite your "pathetic" (false?) idolatry of the man, it's now been over 14 years, and RMN is still dead. Get over it.

Next up, the weather.

George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and FDR have all been deceased much longer than Mr. Nixon.

Yet he set the stage for the USA to prevail over a vicious Soviet threat, while democrats insisted that we play nice with those dastardly commies. Mr. Nixon didn't listen to those fellow travelers. And though the left despised him, Mr. Nixon is indeed a visionary in promoting freedom.

With thanks to Richard Milhous Nixon, Aleksandr Solshenitsen and millions of others are now free from the gulags and labour camps.

Just because some is gone from this earth doesn't mean his or her accomplishments are any less important to those who stay behind.

Herb

He dodges left, right, up the center, and....

Doh! Ref calls "Foul! Subject change. Penalty."

And your facts to support your claim that FOX is indeed fair and balanced, as opposed to serving those that don't think things are fair, and need some balance?

(nice huh?)

C'mon Herb!

We know you think all things left are just crap. That's fine and good. No need to reinforce that right now. We know the score. It's all good.

Just like the "Bush Sucks" discussion. Surely there are some nice and neat facts, with solid sourcing that refute the information I, and others posted above? This really isn't that hard. Either the studies have some flaw that more or less undermines their utility, where supporting the unbalanced claim is concerned, or they are incomplete somehow missing key elements, or maybe they are solid.

One more time: Fox is essentially LYING about how they are presenting the news. They are not FAIR, nor are they BALANCED. They lean hard right, and have done so more or less from the beginning. They co-mingle facts and opinion to a degree where their viewers are significantly more likely to not come away from their viewing session with a solid grasp of the facts, leaving them unable to judge the merits of the opinions they heard in a solid way.

..or maybe that's wrong? Burden is on you, my friend, and DD and Nwokie too, to set the rest of us, of mixed political persuasion, straight on this matter.

I know getting to acceptance on this is gonna be tough --damn tough. There is a serious personal investment here. I completely understand. You could yield, call time, or something if you feel it's too tough to face, or perhaps maybe need to do some serious digging before engaging the topic again.

By all means, do what you need to do. It's all good.

HerrB

What?!? No (say it with me, people) "Rape Rooms"??? Just boring old Gulags?

And unlike WPE, whom the majority of Left AND Right Americans currenty "despise", I'm not sure how many people "despised" Nixon until he got caught. Did you even check out the other thread regarding presidential approval ratings?

Regardless, the other three guys and even Eve's name('s) don't appear here every other day, as does RMN's name. And I thought you said that you were going to cool it on that, since we'll all painfully aware of your "man-crush".

Nice subject change BTW...enjoy another cup of that delicious Arbor Mist and keep on pouting.

Herb - you're doing it again. You won't say what you really think. You just imply things and then hope that we forgot all the other stuff you've said.

Herb said - " Need I remind you that: 1. Mr. Bush was not my choice in the primary." Nor mine. So what? What does that have to do with my point that you will take a " Well at least we aren't as bad as ( insert Clinton jab, poll stat )" as undisputable proof of right on your side?"

Herb Said " 2. I do not agree with Mr. Bush on some issues." Same here. Again. So?

Herb said - "3. I'm a Nixon man." Now that we did not need to be reminded of. But really, so what? So therefore what? Being a Nixon man proves that you are not as interested in victory or " not being as bad as..." as you imply? You caould be driven by victory at all costs AND be for Bush or Nixon?

THEN Herb said - " So please don't think that to me it's all about winning. It is about working with the best plans. So far, the democrats have abandoned ship."

Ah - we ALMOST reach common ground here. But then you do the very thing you claim not to do - and you do it to prove that you don't do it...

Herb said - "And how pathetic must the democrats be, to be continually bested by an unpopular, lame duck? You're defending THEM?" Which, to put another way is " He may be bad - but he's not as bad as your team. Therefore we win by one point."

All this on the heels of contributing to threads and starting them with things like this - ( and this is not a cherry pick. I have more if you want them. So stop with the " Hey - I'm on your side guys. Bush isn't doing a very good job." Because you don't really think that. That's why you stop short of it. So we make due with the implications you make - like this...)

Herb said - "Congress Approval Down to 29%; Bush Approval Steady at 33%

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27589

You guys wanna talk polls? You're awfully silent on your own low democrat-controlled congressional approval rating."

Yeah. That doesn't scream " neener neener neener rubber glue." or anything.

You obviously come from a generation that was told and taught to repspect the President at all costs. You also came from a generation in which you had better reason to. But there is NO way ANY of that applies to Bush any longer. Fox News can milk the Boomers for every dime they want. There are plenty of us that feel we are justified to be royally pissed and feel responsible enough to say it as many times as it takes to get the change we NEED. Not just want for the sake of some hollow victory. Great. Republicans won twice. You deserved a shot. You blew it. If you hadn't, I'd be a Republican. But you did. So I'm not.

Gimme the ball back now please.

"They are not FAIR, nor are they BALANCED."

Ok. Here's the deal.

The leftist nature of reportage is plain to see, given that over 90% of reporters voted democrat in the last election.

Deny all you want, but it also explains why Fox News is so popular. People are mad as heck about being given only one side of any story. It also explains why Bill O'Reilly is WILDY POPULAR and TROUNCING the competition, even some broadcast shows. Does O'Reilly have his own opinions? Sure, and he makes them known. The guy's a Catholic and against abortion. So unlike plenty of left-leaning so-called 'objective' reporters, at least he discloses his bias.

The spin stops at Bill O'Reilly's progam. Why else would Hillary Clinton refuse to go on his show? No Larry King softballs in the No Spin Zone, that's why.

Given this dynamic, Fox News is fair and balanced given that they at least provide both sides more often than ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN.

You guys may not like the fact that Alan Colmes, Erin Schwartz, Bob Beckel, Juan Williams, Ellis Henican, Susan Esterich and the plethora of other democrats on Fox News don't represent your view the way you would, but their liberal credentials are impressive.

Still in denial? Fine. Then yet another strong 'fair and balanced' argument can be made because due to Fox's being outnumbered by leftist outlets and since Fox is mainly a cable show at that, merely by providing a forum for a conservative view, Fox News IS equal time and a counter-balance to balance out all the other leftist drivel.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0621/p09s02-coop.html

Herb

I don't think we have all that big of a left bias in the media. Do me a favor and go read the paper linked in Ed's recent thread. It's the clearest presentation of that I've ever seen.

Frankly, setting aside the FOX discussion, I find most of the coverage bland, and missing many items of note. I also find it favors big interests far more than it does anything else. This is true pretty much across the board.

I've been asking, "What Liberal Media?" for a long time. It's just not there, and I don't care who votes how. I also believe this problem is related to media consolidation. Those that own the presses get to call the shots.

When I have written we have media problems in general, that affect everyone, this is what I mean. Ed's link illustrates it nicely, and features a lot of solid support at the end. It's sourced well, and worthy of some greater discussion no matter where any of us land on the political spectrum.

You've not established that how reporters vote impacts their coverage. I know most everything that comes through mainstream media goes through a vetting process that impacts both stories covered, and copy published / broadcast.

This is true for all but a few, who get their own featured space. We've got to address that before any solid points can be made where voting records and reporting are concerned.


Getting back to FOX, your point, as usual, is a slippery one. What you think FOX is doing brings BALANCE, and is FAIR. This, once again, is not the same as their presentation being FAIR and BALANCED, which has been my point all along. Read that a coupla times --SLOWLY, before responding. Please.

In this, FOX is being dishonest in their branding and that bleeds into their framing, in that it masks a hard right bias as being something mainstream. It just isn't.

This is harmful, if allowed to happen unchecked because a lot of people will come to conclusions that are not well supported by the facts. Those people vote and FOX is more or less all about getting them to vote against their own best interests. (generally speaking)

BTW: I totally see why you love FOX. They use the same slippery means to make points as you do regularly. These means often take considerable discussion to sort out. That has been noted here repeatedly as well.

If you think having a hard right bias network is fair and is necessary for balance, you are entitled to that. No biggie.

If you think doing so in a less than honest way is fair, I'm sorry that's just not gonna fly and that's where the problem is, and I don't care how much balance that ends up being good for. Either lying or misrepresenting things is wrong or it isn't. There is no sometimes wrong, or are you really telling me you prefer greys, but only when it makes the world better for you Herb?

This general theme resonates through out the discussion here. Undermine the Constitution to bring us greater freedom, war started on lies to make us safer, lying to be fair, cultivating fear to make us feel safe. Fuck it Herb. Why not just get it out and be completely Orwellian with it?

"ignorance is strength".

Herb's arguments in support of FOX slosh back and forth between "They have liberal commentators and conservative commentators, therefore they are very balanced" and "FOX provides a conservative counterbalance to mainstream liberal media."

Which is it? Are they balanced or are they conservative?

BTW,FOX's popularity is irrelevant to the discussion about where their bias lies. If/how FOX reflects America is a different discussion.

Thank God I don't have cable TV.

Sorry but this debate for me is so meaningless.

Chris, have you considered the indirect impact? If we've got large numbers of people consuming media, and they vote, don't those votes have on you personally?

IMHO, it's relevant in that fashion --very relevant.

If, those of us who are doing our part to consume media in a sane fashion, do not highlight the problems that come with declaring, or even accepting that FOX is "Fair and Balanced", don't we then do ourselves a disservice?

"Chris, have you considered the indirect impact? If we've got large numbers of people consuming media, and they vote, don't those votes have on you personally?"

Have never felt that way.

"If, those of us who are doing our part to consume media in a sane fashion, do not highlight the problems that come with declaring, or even accepting that FOX is "Fair and Balanced", don't we then do ourselves a disservice? "

I don't let banners or the way a station chooses to image itself ever influence me in anyway. Been in the business too long to let that happen. I personally don't need TV news.

I'm in your camp, Chris. Don't have cable and never plan to have it. I occasionally stumble across that Dirty Dining/Meth Watch fest called the "FOX 10 o'Clock News" which I quickly click past. It's not because of liberal or conservative bias, but rather the infotainment that is being proffered as news. Of course, that all gets back to agenda-setting, which is probably the biggest "conservative" issue with FOX and its affiliates: the fear mongering that is part and parcel with audience-grabbing story selection (Murder! Meth! Sex offender! Bomb scare! Storm Team!). City council meetings just aren't sexy enough for FOX - or unfortunately, for many other broadcast news organizations either.

Interesting...

I'm in the don't need TV news camp. Been there for a while now. What watching I do, is usually done as part of spending some time with others, who do watch.

Forget the FOX discussion then. (it is DD's thread, so he can slap me down for taking it off track)

So, let's say the nation ends up with some worse legislation than it does now. Something that cramps your style directly. (this has already happened to me, but what that is ends up on another thread.)

If it's really democracy in action, there is a case for just accepting that and moving on. I'm up for that.

However, what if said democracy is functioning poorly, and you are limited and it's not really the will of the people, but that will of a substantial subset of the people?

Feel the same way? Why?

Where I'm going is I'm seeing just bailing on all of it --to go low profile and just do what I do regardless as an increasingly viable option. I really don't have to care, essentially. Something like that anyway.

Let us review this news source, shall we?

William Fox founded "Fox" in 1915 to produce newsreels. He merged his other interests -- a film rental outfit and a production company -- under the new name. Although the firm had New Jersey roots, in 1917, Fox sent his buddy, Sol Wurtzel, west to California where land and labor were cheap. That year, he also introduced Theda Bara, arguably the first "selling seats with sexy" actress in American film. The famous Fox studio and the celluloid it produced took hold of the imagination of America.

Selling seats was very important to William Fox and he bought or built many theatres across the United States. No surprise, both Seattle and Portland had Fox marquees as the centerpiece of dazzling boulevards during the age of the silver screen. By owning it all, down to the projector and the popcorn, he could control every aspect of production, presentation and profit. He could also tap into the money of the competition through screenings and distribution.

In 1926, he purchased the inventions of Theodore Case and launched the Movietone system of sound-on-film. The next year, seeing the impact of the "talkie" on audiences, he launched "Fox Movietone News" and the weekly series ran until 1963. Like his motion pictures and the features produced later by Zanuck, it was an appeal to the purses, passions and prejudices of the American public. Because it was carefully framed and often slanted, it still has a great deal of historic value to both scholars and citizens.

The Crash of 1929 affected every American, and like many, William Fox was hit hard by the Depression. Simply put, he lost his studio and went to jail. After receivership and a hostile takeover, the company merged with 20th Century, a small upstart owned by Darryl Zanuck and Joe Schenck. A new era began, and like the rest of Hollywood, the company worked diligently to distance itself from the past and made myths to obscure the truth that were believed for years, but hey, that's entertainment.

At that point in history, the newsreels had footage that captured the imagination of everyone, but the "narrator" was not as powerful an influence as a newspaper or radio journalist. The feature movie after the short news would be remembered far more vividly, but the footage would be recalled when the event was read about or heard. From the beginning, it proved that pictures were powerful, and television would confirm that fact. However, in the beginning at least, the little box was held to the standards of journalism established by radio and print, not the infotainment of newsreels.

For decades, 20th Century Fox had ups and downs, including stinkers like Cleopatra that almost destroyed the studio. Without a cut and paste from imdb, I'll just say they made a whole lot of pictures, some horrid and some wonderful, with a variety of talented and not-so-talented folks. I hope that will suffice. After the old guard -- Darryl's son, Richard Zanuck -- left in 1971, the Dennis Stanfill and Alan Ladd jr. era began. That period is most notable in that it very very reluctantly brought us Star Wars.

In 1978, the newly stable 20th Century Fox was purchased by Marc Rich and Marvin Davis. In 1981, Rich sold his interest to News Corporation, owned by Australian mogul, Rupert Murdoch. In 1984, Davis sold his half to Murdoch, giving complete control to News Corporation. Rupert hired former Paramount executive, Barry Diller, to run the studio, and right off the bat, Barry suggested starting a fourth television network. Murdoch loved the idea. So much in fact, that he became an American citizen in 1985 for the sole purpose of purchasing Metromedia -- once affectionately known as the DuMont Network. In 1986, Fox Television was born.

This is not an organization with roots in journalism, but spectacle. It has had great success with entertainment, but not the facts. None of us should be surprised that the greasepaint has a firmer hold on these folks than the grease pencil. This is not journalism, this is not broadcasting, it is, in every sense, just Hollywood.

Hooray.

"It's not because of liberal or conservative bias, but rather the infotainment that is being proffered as news."

You're clearly in the minority, because most people want to be informed if a meth lab, murder, or child abduction occurs nearby. And don't YOU want to know if that restaurant you frequent is sanitary? Dirty Dining lets you know.

It's about being informed. Just because Fox does a better job, don't be sour grapes.

Herb

"people want to be informed if a meth lab, murder, or child abduction occurs nearby."

That's what the internet and newspaper are for.

Fox 10 o'clock news in NOT news, it's like watching "Cops". Sure, I'm guilty of watching it after "House", but is it news? No. And I don't give a poop about the weather. I just look outside. It's Oregon.

Wait - Herb - what channel do you call Fox? Specifically - what channel number?

Both KPTV-12 and Fox News on cable are Fox, as far as I'm concerned.

Herb

Herb writes:
You're clearly in the minority, because most people want to be informed if a meth lab, murder, or child abduction occurs nearby.

When do they do that??? The only thing I see Fox do is run after Bush and put him on the air every time he wants to clear his throat AND why do you stand up for them so much YOU the consumate flag-waving patriotic american? You do know Murdoch isn't american don't you???? I'll take my business to a channel owned by americans.

Is anyone here, besides Herb, talking about KPTV and FNC as being the same when it comes to any perceived political slant? It hadn't occured to me that it might be the case.

Just for the record, I watch the 10 O Clock News on KPTV. Not one of the things I have ever said when using the term " Fox News " is to be applied to that broadcast. It's local news.

Herb, what channel do you watch O Reilly on?

there is a big piece today in the liberal-leaning The Oregonian written by a, no doubt, liberal-leaning reporter for The Associated Press about FOX News and their lack of coverage of the Iraq war.

Oh, by the way, the "spin stops on o'rielly show" because he stops it with "shut up, shut up, shut up!"

This is another one of his slippery ass dodges people.

He meant FOX cable news, despite claims otherwise.

He must think we're really stoopid to fall for that one.

("Retreat! Retreat! Retreat! Divert! Make something up!" yells RMN to HerrB)

"Is anyone here, besides Herb, talking about KPTV and FNC as being the same when it comes to any perceived political slant?"

I will certainly confirm that I look at any "entity" as being one and the same. The "10 O'Clock News" was a timely and in depth report on my city, but is now just another graphic intensive source of fear mongering and paranoia. I hate to say any media outlet suffered with the departure of Lars Larson, but frankly, when he left, that news department went downhill in a hurry. Now, "Good Day Oregon" is an infomercial meant to appeal to the apron and screaming kids set, and the "news" reports channel 12 carries are often just plain silly. The fact that they win awards tells you how lousy all of our local news outlets truly have become.

I see consolidation for what it is and I try to find and understand the many tentacles of any given corporate structure. This is why, for instance, the lameass ABC sportscasters, notably Jim Gray, are now seen on ESPN, while great ESPN reporters, like Joe Buck, are now found on ABC. Also, because of their corporate connection, the staff of both ABC and ESPN spend time at Disney World. In the same way, if a station is affiliated with Fox, it is Fox, even FSN -- a lousy sports network by any standard -- is just Fox to me. Whether it floats, splatters or sinks, if it all comes from the same ass, it is all the same poop. In this case, being from Australia, it swirls down the other direction.

You guys are wrong.

Fox News Sunday is on KPTV 12 with Chris Wallace.

Where's Cochise when you need him? You people are out of control. He'd straighten you guys out.

Herb

Oh brother.

No wait - I was talking about The Fox and The Hound - Disney movie - very sympathetic to Nazis.

Any entity, such as Fox, who comes along and tells the truth will set the liberals off. That's why the liberals are trying so hard to get the fairness doctrine reinstated. They want to shut Rush and Hannity up. Liberalism cannot withstand sunlight.

Absolutely, Deane.

Like I said, they cannot stand losing their monopoly on news. It's like seeing Oz behind the curtain and the emperor having no clothes, all at once.

RIP lefty news.

Herb

Well if Rush and Hannity were on KPTV, then that would be one point for you. And one is all it takes, I know.

Rush Limbaugh (gas bag) and Sean Hannity (wind bag) and Bill O'reilly (shit bag), have ZERO credence where the truth is concerned, with Hannity and Limbaugh likely to be the worst of the lot.

Bill has his moments.

All three of these hosts have advocated for this nation to be a theoracy, all three have advocated hate against gay people, all three co-mingle facts and opinion to a degree that regular consumers of their programs are impaired in their ability to properly judge the merits of their stated opinions.

We've been over the crap these people have presented here many times. If, what they say regularly was so fricking true, more solid points in support of their statements would be more easily made.

Remember folks, I know the archive is gone, but I was here the whole damn time.

The GOP supporters here have the RECORD for misinformation, dodges and general unwillingness to concede points fairly taken from them.

Just like the network they are trying to say is a solid one.

It's funny really. Laugh.

I disagree with Mr. Bush on border security and some other issues as well, but it's encouraging that even with his low presidential poll numbers and democrats controlling congress, a cable news outlet like Fox can RANKLE the left.

You guys should be cheering, yet you're so concerned about freedom of the presses...now that you no longer control them all. I hope they start a Fox News Channel #2, #3 and #4, where they could re-play old Nixon footage of the president and Henry the K besting Brezhnev. Where do I sign up for my cable subscription?

Herb

"Rush Limbaugh (gas bag) and Sean Hannity (wind bag) and Bill O'reilly (shit bag), have ZERO credence where the truth is concerned, with Hannity and Limbaugh likely to be the worst of the lot."

IYHO, right?

Sure, but I've got some support for it:

Enjoy!

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/rushlimbaugh

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/seanhannity

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/billoreilly

Feel free to explore the many citations backing the brief summaries on each of these *bags. It goes back for a really long time. Long enough to establish clear patterns of disinformation used to justify questionable opinion.

And it's IMO. Not humble on this topic, not at all. Seriously!

The information presented above, does not support the idea that they are always liars. They do inform, and their stuff is very well produced and they are all personable. They produce great radio and television.

However, calling them trustworthy or authoritative is quite a stretch, given their more or less constant stream of lies and manupulations.

There is no liberal media bias.

Prove otherwise.

With relish.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp

You beat me to it.

Of course you can throw in Rathers made up report on President Bush.

Only relish? How about the meat?

"The Propaganda Analysis bulletin indirectly targeted the mass public through newspapers, educators, public officials, and opinion leaders, informing them of who controlled and influenced the flow of propaganda through various channels of communications. The IPA directly targeted the presidents and deans of national colleges, bishops and ministers, educational and religious periodicals, and education students by sending out flyers. Also, in an attempt to educate the public about how to identify propagandistic material, the IPA issued a set of methods called the "seven common propaganda devices":

1. Name-calling
2. Glittering generalities
3. Transfer
4. Testimonial
5. Plain folks
6. Card stacking
7. Bandwagon

These "ABCs of Propaganda Analysis" encouraged readers to understand and analyze their own views on propagandistic material in order to promote informed thought provoking discussions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Propaganda_Analysis

Media is corporate, not liberal. Whatever sells prescription drugs, disinfectant and microwave meals is what they report. Do not kid yourself folks, the agenda is neither right nor left until they figure out which pocket you use to carry your wallet. The Australians are historically quite adept at raising sheep, so that is who they target.

Card stacking, i like that, you cant stack the cards, unless you got some cards to start with.

Plain folks, thats right, if your not part of the elite group, your opinion doesnt count.

Transfer, you should be careful who you hang out with.

Name Calling, Liberals hate being called liberals.

Um, small favor. Click on the hyperlink, read the article completely, and do a little research before posting. Thanks much.

So media matters claims just the opposite, see the "Conservative America is a Myth" thread.

So, we are at an impasse, correct?

Want to just factor out both the liberal and conservative media claims and just focus on who is accurate a higher percentage of the time?

From there we could arrive at trustworthy sources and not so trustworthy ones, of whatever bias.

Throughout this thread, I've not made any bias is bad claims. I've only made, misrepresenting ones bias is bad claims. I've also made accuracy and trustworthiness claims.

These are the issues, not the bias.

So, that more or less deflates your, "rankles" liberals claims. Anyone with the ability to reason rationally would be rankled.

It's ok to have your bias on the air. I want mine too! It's all good, and the more the merrier.

oh you mean like when John Edwards calls himself just a plain old guy.

The Instutute for Propaganda, is the mother of all propaganda sites.

Actually, it was an organization that lasted from 1937 to 1942, and exposed many Americans for the first time to critical thought. It ceased operations rather than examine and expose America's own propaganda during the war, but you would know this had you actually read the site and did research as I suggested.

BTW: I was taught these in 4th Grade! My teacher prefaced this with expressed concern over our ability to watch the TV and come away with an understanding of what is and what is not solid information.

1. Name-calling
2. Glittering generalities
3. Transfer
4. Testimonial
5. Plain folks
6. Card stacking
7. Bandwagon

My kids never heard of these in school, until much later and long after I had brought them up. I used to take them through commercials and other relevant programs. We played the "truth or bullshit game" I let them actually say bullshit, but they had to nail it or suffer a penalty.

(it's an incentive ok? get them involved first, sweat the little things later. This is why I am not a teacher for a living.)

We all made our own ads and simple presentations in school. We were encouraged to read something and "find the hook", which I do to this day! We compared our presentations and identified what technique was used.



Fun, and vital stuff, IMHO. Thanks Little for a coupla great memories, going home and watching the "magic clean" commercials, understanding for the first time what I was really watching! That teacher changed my life --and that of quite a few of my peers as well.

A real visionary educator makes all the difference doesn't it? I am glad to know you are getting your kids into critical thinking early and often!

I try. (because I think it really matters and the rest of this long ass post is a bit about why)

They are teens now, with the youngest one just barely there. I've got plenty of time and work to do with him and the middle kid. My current oldest, not left the house just yet, is battling with just hanging with the friends (does not see what life could be like outside the HS fishbowl just yet), and actually thinking. I just might not get it done, and it will be his deal.

It does matter! I remember nearly every year I went to school, who taught it, and when they taught it. A fair percentage of my teachers were solid, looking back. A few were flat out excellent, and I'll never forget them. Maybe I'll blog on that for a while. They are likely gone, most of them, but maybe not.

Prior to that Propaganda exercise, which they framed as the 7 kinds of advertizing, my critical thinking was fairly limited. If I thought about something, or perhaps it just didn't add up at first glance, it got tagged in my head as not true. If it made sense, generally true. And authorities were true. Manupulation was not something I groked in a solid way.

(why have them be authorities otherwise? Little did I freaking know!)

I remember going home after the discussion and watching some stuff on good old KPTV. You know the drill, "Speed Racer", "Batman", etc... The cleaning commercials just lept out at me! Complete and utter bullshit! Freaking amazing! I saw the hook in every last one of them! Of course, I thought, why do this? It's so obvious, everybody will see it, I'm just a kid.

You know the scary thing is realizing that a whole lotta people just don't see it!

When I said that class day changed my life, it really did. I began to quantify truth to a greater degree. The realization that we have authorities because we want them or just need them was new and quite profound. This is a journey I'm still on --will always be on.

In short, I began to ask "Why?" Afterall, if people worked so hard to explore all the ways people can be influenced, there must be a reason right? If we have truth, then there really is no discussion, other than denial --rejection and perhaps justification. "True, but not fair, etc..."

Over the years, it became obvious that what we often call true, really equates to "we really freaking hope and sometimes need it to be true". Many of us want this badly enough to just not even bother past that. This is faith and conviction. It's not bad, in and of itself, but can be a ready source for manupulation, as I found out in my teen years. (I really don't beleve today because of that, actually.)

And that's worrysome for me. Always has been, always will.

What I didn't understand then, and still don't understand now is why this is so. There are things we know absolutely. There are not that many of these things, but they are known. Then there are things we think are true, but might not be, but it's looking solid, so no worries.

From there, we get to want to be truths and that's where it has always broken down.

I've absolutely no problem with not known true things being a part of the process. Where we've got absolutes, that's easy. One can reason from the core and get to where they need to be with no worries. Math is like this.

Where we bump into something not known true, there are just possibilities. Sometimes only a few, sometimes too many to process, so one chooses and justfies that and all is good. Should new info come in, one just does that again.

Why do otherwise? It's just a self lie and those are never good. --ever.

BTW: The closest analogy I can come up with also comes from math. Simultanious (however the heck it's spelled) equations. Sometimes we can solve these to a known set of solutions. Once in a while that solution set results in a singularity (I think, but I've lost the skill to prove it). Most often, it just all results in sets of known possible solutions, with no absolutely right one.

Anyway, that's a snapshot of the thinking that happened with me after being introduced to these things early on.

One key realization, that did not come until much later, is the utility of tools. Mental tools are like physical ones. Often, something can be cobbled together to accomplish the goal, but the tool represents that process refined and packaged so that people can move on to bigger and better things, right?

Well, before that exercise, I used to see some ADs and call bullshit. It could be reasoned through, but each time it was a process that might go wrong. I would be easily fooled, but not know it because of a simple reasoning error!

(and this too is like math, isn't it?)

So then, having aquired the tools, it then becomes much easier and more reliable for the person faced with a reasoning problem to move to that next level and not just grok it, but to move on and apply that and grow from it or leverage it, etc...

This was a realization that changed how I choose to learn as well. Remembering a rule, or mastering a tool is vital. Gotta do it.

Various facts, dates, etc... tabular data, in other words is far less important. Why?

Because without tools, one can only process within the scope of the tabulation or presentation. With the tools, not only can one perform outside those bounds, but use incomplete tabulations, or perhaps repurpose existing ones! There is sheer, raw, human power in this. A lot of people either don't know or don't care though, and I don't know why.

So then information falls into two catagories:

reference material (facts, observations, etc...)

tools, or active material (rules, processes, concepts)

Having the latter in your head and being able to manupulate that with the rules is key. Having the former makes life often easier, but does not get one to creative works, or conclusions necessary to build the self, grow and understand.

Sorry it's a book, but one that might explain why FOX is just wrong and harmful to a lot of people! For me, this is a harm that runs deep. Right to the core. Offensive even, because it's a waste and a manupulation. We really don't need these things, if we have the right tools, do we?

(I don't think so.)

From that time forward (about HS), it came to me that going to school is really about getting to know people and to learn how to learn. The rest is just fluff that helps, but is not really all that important.

(grades went to hell on that basis, but I did some great stuff --just didn't get official credit for it! I could use a do over there.)

So I really could not tell you who my civic leaders were, or recite nations, or other tables of things, but I could easily fix a TV, get my HAM license, write computer games, build stuff, etc...

Who knows? Had some teacher not introduced me to these things at an early enough age to have an impact on development and the self, I might not be where I am. Then again, I might be too. Nature -vs- nurture. (I'm a nurture guy, but the jury is out on that one still.)

>>>"There is no liberal media bias."

This statement all by itself negates your credibility for all time.

Touche' Deane.

Herb

I am afraid not. As much as you two would love to see that, my record here is fucking solid. I've worked for it, and I mean business.

Come on back when you've got a few months of no dodges. I put the stuff up and push hard to see if it stands or not. Where it does not, I've recognized that nearly every time. On those that I don't, I'm still willing to engage.

And if one poor statement negates one's credence for all time, you two have no fucking hope. Absolutely none.

Touche' indeed.

(you could at least think about it before trying to marginalize me --it's just an insult otherwise. And perhaps that's really your point, lacking sufficient means and methods to take the high ground with your brand of crap)

Go read the post Chris made. Feel good this morning!

(sorry double post)

Yeah, that comment chapped my ass. I don't think one, or even a few off the wall statements is enough to conclude anything solid. You two know it too, and I know you know it. So it is what it is. Sorry for coming back on that hard.

Have a good weekend.

If you have to mindlessly swear to make your point, you don't have much of a point.

Herb

Mindlessly?

You deserved it.

Thanks Mrs M.

Well, I do have a point; namely, the idea that one statement that could be questionable devalues ones overall credence is just stupid, particularly when the statement in question clearly is not a slam dunk to judge one way or the other.

And, of course, you having made a batch of these, repeatedly over time, is more or less pot calling kettle black. Just nuts! But that's the part I thought I might just set aside and focus on the greater point, that happens to be relevant to the thread at hand.

Never mind. I really am not sorry. This is just more of a dodge and I got sucked into it. Let's just try it another way.

(And I really do not care what you think of the occasional profane expression. I also agreed to limit that, given you were less prone to dodge going forward. We had this discussion and I offered to see some common ground.

I see the dodges on a regular basis, so I see no reason not to express my emotion over these things as I see fit. I just was not getting any return on limiting my range of expression.)

Truth is, the assertion that there is no liberal media bias is problematic. I really don't see that much of it, some others do, some see it leaning right. It's present in some places and in some media forms, but not others.

Rather than, once again trying to make me look bad, why not detail how I have it wrong?

That gem is why you got the profanity, BTW. It's a big ass dodge. Quite deserving, given our earlier conversation.

We've got the voting record bit, how about others?

Where are the solid studies studies that go some distance to refute the excellent Media Matters paper linked here, that clearly shows a solid disconnect between mainstream Americans opinion and how that is reflected in their media coverage.

Where I was headed with that was some greater discussion about said liberal media bias, as making that statement is no longer a slam dunk. To be accurate, that statement needs to have some scope, if it is to make any sense at all, beyond the often cited, "blame the media" bit.

Talk radio doesn't have that bias, that's for sure. Conservative views rule at least 3 to one if not 5 to 1. FOX doesn't have it, but MSNBC does, how about CNN? I see a corporate slant more than anything else there.

And that was the point when I said there is no liberal bias; prove otherwise, not any of our overall credence here one way or the other.

There is this not often stated implication that Americans are leaning too far left, because their media is leaning too far left. That was put forth here as a justification for FOX being "Fair and Balanced", which is just isn't, unless having a hard right network is something that needs to exist to be fair and to bring balance.

And, if that's the case, being honest about it should be no big deal, given that imbalance is easily demonstrated right?

So what gives? Something has to, or it just does not add up.

the troll sez: "If you have to mindlessly swear to make your point, you don't have much of a point."

The vice president did it on the senate floor. The president and the vice president also did it before the dumbth was to make a speech. Neither of them clearly never had a point to make.

You gotta love it how the troll is consistant with his hypocriticy. Get loss troll.

And the courts just recently slapped the FCC for going a bit too far with this as well.

Regardless, it's just not the focus, but an excuse.

You asked for proof of media bias.

Proof is provided, but then you wave it away because you don't want to be bothered by facts.

Sorry, that doesn't make the facts go away. Now I understand the profanity. I'd want to swear too, if my position had been shown to be so weak.

Herb

The stuff presented here, where media bias is concerned, is not conclusive!

Some of your facts presented are solid Herb. Some of the stuff I presented is solid, as is others.

Taken as a whole, the case for there being a blanket liberal media bias is weak. (it's also weak for a conservative one overall too, for what that's worth)

I know I am not right about the bias issue, and want to discuss that. (well, later) The case for you not being right is pretty damn solid at this point. One would think the same discussion matters, if only to establish some greater solid understanding.

Belitting others is ok too.

"I know I am not right about the bias issue, and want to discuss that."

Fair enough. I give you credit on that.

"Taken as a whole, the case for there being a blanket liberal media bias is weak."

Blanket? Perhaps that's the problem. No one ever said every single media outlet is liberally biased. Like most circumstances, there are bound to be exceptions, like maybe some lung surgeons smoke 3 packs a day. We're not talking about exceptions, but the rule.

Herb

but the rule...

That's a back door entry back around to "blanket", and that's in doubt.

Consider there are more than two ways this could go as well. I'm not saying it's all conservative either. It sure as hell isn't balanced.

I'm pointing my finger right at media consolidation. Where we have a bias, no matter which way, there is another layer on top of that that's becoming apparent to me. I would characterize this layer, coarsely, as corporatist --as in allowing the bias, but also making sure big business interests are best served.

Said interests include dividing us Herb.

There are a number of matters that have been discussed here, with immigration being a prime one happening right now, that really are not so partisan. Another is ethics and our congress in general. Again, the core function of congress, given that it is healthy, is not really such a partisan thing.

The traditional media, amplifies matters that get ratings, and is doing so at our mutual expense.

If we had a simple bias problem, I think that would be welcome, given the number of outlets and forms we have, I don't see it as being that big of a deal. But I don't think we have that problem to the degree I hear often mentioned.

I'm gonna wrap up my end of things here. Essentially, I don't think there has been enough established in a solid way to support the idea there is a liberal media bias, and that bias is causing us some trouble that would not be there otherwise.

That's it. To tie it to this thread specifically, not enough has been presented to justify what FOX does as being fair and balanced. The idea of it being fair because of excessive liberal media bias is bunk.

First, they misrepresent what they do. We don't achieve justice via lies. Why should be a cake walk. It may well be that what they do, does bring balance. That one is wide open, as has been detailed above.

However, said balance, given the problem I think we have, identified in this post, is somewhat problematic as achieving it really is not an indicator of a healthy media serving us well.

"I'm pointing my finger right at media consolidation."

We're agreed on that being potentially very scary. It's already bad enough with the liberal view over-represented, but at least there's cable and talk radio. If we have more media consolidation and another so-called 'fairness doctrine' then I'll have little else but old Nixon speeches to listen to.

Everything from the media will be so PC there won't be much else on the political scene worth hearing.

Herb

Ahh....That's why NPR is so wonderful Herb.

The Simpsons vs. FOX

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkI8dPbgBY8

This is funny as hell!

"every day, Mexican Gays are entering this country..."

"my job as FOX censor is to protect you from reality"

"lady strippers running an airline --"Landing Strip"

DA siad>>>
It's mostly because liberals have to have something to hate. They have nothing positive to offer, so their only focus is negative.

Like when anything the left wants to try and start.... You Bible thumpin' hate mongers on the EXTREME RIGHT want to shut everything down.

If FAUXNews is liberal.... I love DUHbya and Co.