Okay, this post is going to be short. I hear all over the liberal world, especially all over the blog-o-sphere, that Fox News is SATAN and that it is a right-wing tool for spreading conservative propaganda. Why is this? Cannot the Liberal Media take a little competition? Ah, you say, it is not "Fair and Balanced" because it is clearly a conservative think-tank. My question in response to you is this, who said that being "fair and balanced" means you can't take a certain stance?
When Fox News says it's "fair and balanced" it means that it has Conservative anchors/commentators: Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, John Kasich, John Gibson, etc.
and
it has Liberal anchors/commentators: Alan Colmes, Mort Kondracke, Geraldo Rivera, Greta Van Susteren, Kirsten Powers, etc.
Tell me where in Liberal Medialand you find a truly balanced lineup of both Conservative and Liberal anchors/commentators?
Also, "Fair and Balanced" means that on any given show, both Republicans and Democrats are invited on to debate the issue at hand. Sounds fair and balanced to me. Is it true that Fox tends to lean conservatively, absolutely. But then again, that is adding balance to the overwhelmingly Liberal-run news networks.
So, why the hatred? If you don't like Fox, don't watch it. And if you don't watch it, shut the hell up about it. Don't go on to MoveOn.org, The Daily Kos or The Huffington Post, get your daily dose of "I hate Fox and all things conservative," and then regurgitate it as if you are getting a "Fair an Balanced" perspective of Fox News.
mulgere-hircum posted on May 17, 2008
| views: 175
Comments
-
silverwhisper said on May 18, 2008....
i dislike foxnews because "fair & balanced" is a lie but it plays very well to the unfortunate head-bobbing section of the conservative contingent.
you aren't familiar with bloc yet, are you? :>
ed -
mulgere-hircum said on May 18, 2008....
Actually I am familiar with bloc and his obsessed tirades are partly what sparked this blog. Again, "fair & balanced" is fair & balanced. I think what people dislike is that Fox leans conservatively. I happen to like that, though I still listen to NPR and watch CNN. MSNBC & NBC have flown the kookoo's nest in their far left stance. bloc, of course, rails against Bill O'Reilly; however, taking clips off of YouTube and actually watching the show are two different things.
I watch the O'Reilly factor all the time, and that doesn't mean I always agree with him. O'Reilly is commentating on the current news and is giving his opinion on them. bloc doesn't seem to get that. He touts O'Reilly as this "in the tank," ultra conservative neo-con liar and this simply isn't true. He is a bloviater, absolutely! He self-describes himself as that. But come on! I watch the show.
He has on, consistently, both conservatives and liberals and he debates the issues with both sides. If the guests debate honestly, he's cool and despite their differences he thanks them for the good debate and for coming on the show. If they try to dodge questions, or spin stuff, he slams them down (no matter if they're right or left). He is an independent, not a conservative. He leans conservatively on some stuff, and liberally on others. He is supportive of going green, he is against these ridiculous oil companies. I have heard ultra-conservatives (i.e. Rush Limbaugh) rail against him and ultra-liberals (i.e. bloc) rail against him. Which tells me he is neither extreme. He has, in my opinion as someone who actually watches the damn show, consistently shown himself to be independent and non-partisan. His opinions may be right or wrong to the viewer, but calling them flat-out lies is silly because opinions are opinions.
Anyway, I didn't want to go all out in making this a defend Bill O'Reilly blog, so I chose to change it to focus on Fox News as a whole. It is "fair & balanced" by definition because it presents both sides. It hires and employs both sides, too. When I turn on CNN I rarely hear a true conservative point of view. Any conservatives they have on are mild and intimidated to speak. That certainly isn't fair & balanced. And forget NBC or MSNBC. They are totally in the tank for the far left. Well, that's all for now.
-
silverwhisper said on May 18, 2008....
does it really present both sides, though? i'm nowhere near convinced that's an accurate statement: i generally find it funny to compare foxnews headlines vs. NYT headlines on the same story. :>
ed -
mulgere-hircum said on May 18, 2008....
But is the NYT a truly unbiased and accurate source? I don't think it is at all and I read the NYT regularly. Perhaps you will disagree with me, but as a liberal the NYT resonates with you. Here's the thing though. There isn't a single conservative voice that comes from the NYT. Now, on Fox News, I hear both voices. I hear the NYT opinion from some of the liberal guests and/or commentators (some of which makes me cringe) and I hear the conservative views (some of which, to be fair, makes me cringe too).
No Joke, Silverwhisper, I was listening to Rush the other day and he said the following: "There is no conservative news network on TV, barring Fox News, and it can be argued that Fox is leaning more and more liberal each day." He was talking about why talk radio is so popular and why news networks, and especially evening news, are having trouble. He actually said that it could be argued that Fox News is leaning more and more liberal each day. Now, I happen to disagree with that, but I do see something revealing about it. Rush, and neo-cons like him, think that Fox isn't conservative enough and liberals think Fox is the tool of neo-cons. What does that tell you? It tells me that they are in fact presenting both sides, and neither side is happy with that. Now, I am not saying that Fox doesn't lean conservatively. They do. But that does not mean that they don't present both sides in the stories they choose to cover. In my opinion, they cover all sides.
Good discussion by the way, Silverwhisper, I respect your opinion and your willingness to honestly debate without becoming like those crazy anonymous bloggers. Talk to you soon.
-
mulgere-hircum said on May 18, 2008....
Also, silverwhisper, anyone that turns to The Huffington Post and Keith Olbermann as valid, unbiased sources reporting on Bill O'Reilly is 150% discredited in my view. And unfortunately for bloc, he has been caught in that very act:
http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/130490/O%27reilly-is-such-a-jack-ass
Enough said about bloc. Evidently, a much younger O'Reilly was caught getting mad at the teleprompter guy and swearing because he lost his Irish temper. Unprofessional, sure? But, then again who hasn't lost there temper, especially with technology that isn't working. All this proves is the O'Reilly is Irish, human and capable of getting angry. Have we learned anything of value? No. We just get to get our kicks off watching O'Reilly get upset. Way to go Huffington Post! Probably not their lowest and most ridiculous ad hominem attack. These people probably don't even know or care what ad hominem is.
-
silverwhisper said on May 19, 2008....
i never said the NYT is unbiased, m-h. :> on the contrary, i agree that they're biased. indeed, i'd argue that NYT & foxnews are polar opposites. like i said, i think that it's useful to read them together.
having said that: i think that foxnews has more incidences of outright fabrications (bloc has posted a few cases).
i'd compare the huffington post to worldnetdaily, myself.
and i've been enjoying our discussion, too. :> thank you.
ed -
mulgere-hircum said on May 19, 2008....
Well, bloc would just never be a credible source of proof that fox news is anything but annoying to someone who hates Fox News. I watch Fox News regularly and don't see a shred of evidence that they fabricate the news. Again, I doubt, seriously, that bloc even ever turns on Fox News. He gets his info from places like The Huffington Post. And then he posts video snippets of Fox News in an attempt to make Fox News out to what he believes it to be.
Such places as the accursed-site mentioned above hate Fox News because Fox News comes down hard on them for their extreme partiality and the smear campaigns they launch against their "enemies" such as Bill O'Reilly. Rather than talking about the issues, they are filled with crazy, far-left, loony, "anonymous blogger" types that have no real argument against the issues as much as they have hatred against those that think differently then them.
George Soros spends his time paying people to do this kind of character assassination when he funds places like The Daily Kos and MoveOn.org. Ariana Huffington is no different. These people and their respective smear sites are simply not credible. That's why you don't see real news Networks (i.e., CNN, Fox News, etc.) using such places as their sources. I have heard MSNBC use such sources, but they're not a "real" news source. They totally pander to the far left crazies. (By the way, when I say far left, I don't mean regular, average moderate liberals...rather, I am speaking of the extremes of the democrat party). -
silverwhisper said on May 20, 2008....
[shrugs]
i've never particularly considered bloc irrational, myself.
ed -
mulgere-hircum said on May 20, 2008....
Well, silverwhisper, that is just how I see it. Anyone who takes stuff from the Huffington Post and uses it as fair and accurate truth, which it's not, is simply not credible because the sources aren't credible. Now if he were pulling this stuff from CNN or another reputable news source I would look more seriously at it.
-
silverwhisper said on May 21, 2008....
[blink]
you must be a more moderate conservative than i'm accustomed to encountering online to refer to CNN as credible. :>
ed -
mulgere-hircum said on May 21, 2008....
LOL! Yes, I am moderate. I am actually independent. I don't buy in, completely, to any party or ideology. I try to keep an open mind and I have voted both ways before. I do tend to lean conservatively, but I am not a "Rah-Rah" for any side. There is no doubt that CNN is liberal; however, I would no more say they fabricate the news than I would say that Fox does. The fact is, that they both report the news and neither are set up to be smear mongers. Fortunately for CNN, they don't get half the hateful smear bombs thrown at them as Fox News does. But if it weren't for Fox News, there would be no conservative-leaning (again the far right doesn't see Fox as conservative) news network. The liberal media has a monopoly, aside from Fox, and the fact that Fox competes, and wins in the ratings against them, is what causes all of the hatred.
-
silverwhisper said on May 22, 2008....
i don't think it's that fox competes that causes the hatred: i think that there are some legitimate concerns there. it's that people tend to knee-jerk in response to such criticism i think that spawns the real hatred.
ed -
mulgere-hircum said on May 22, 2008....
I disagree, and I don't see either of us convincing each other. Do you watch Fox News? Like seriously watch it? Like I said, before, out of all of the news networks, I see Fox as the most fair and balanced. And again, fair and balanced doesn't mean that they can't take a side, it just means that both sides get are presented and given equal representation. As for news fabrication, to really see it you have to turn to Dan Rather's Memo Scandal or Richard Engel's Bush Interview Editing debacle to see true fabrication. I realize that in Dan Rather's case, it wasn't his fault that the memo was incorrect, but an unwillingness to admit that Bush was innocent of any charge was too much for Rather to handle, and so for ideological purposes, he threw his career away in defending a memo that was indefensible. As for Richard Engel, how honest is he? He has his editors take his interview with Bush and cut out the stuff that allows Bush to explain himself so that Engel gets the answer he wants. It's disgraceful. NBC and MSNBC are completely and utterly disgraceful news networks. But I don't see hypocrites like The Huffington Post or MoveOn.org or other far-left crazies ever even blow a horn in their direction.
No, the hatred of Fox News is ideological, not factual. Sometimes things get mis-reported on Fox, just like on every news network. But when push comes to shove, Fox will admit their errors (I've seen it, since I watch the network) and give the right report. CNN does the same, for the most part. As for The Huffington Post, MoveOn.org, NBC, MSNBC (featuring the ever endearing and honest [sarcasm applied here] Keith Olbermann), etc., there is no accountability with them. If you say they're wrong, they smear you. They are ideologues and they are disgraceful.
But I do respect your opinion. I am just saying that I don't see the evidence for it. I watch Fox News regularly and seem to come away with an understanding of the news. Not only the conservative point of view, not only the liberal point of view, but I have a handle of both. When I turn to CNN, and yes, even the Huffington Post, NBC, MSNBC, etc., I hear the arguments that I got a handle of on Fox. They don't misrepresent the liberal opinion, because it is liberals who are presenting their opinions on Fox. It is on Fox where I see real discussion between conservatives, moderates, and liberals going on. I don't really see that on CNN and I certainly don't see that beyond CNN.
-
silverwhisper said on May 23, 2008....
fair enough, m-h. i'm not familiar with the richard engel thing, though.
reasoned discussion and a willingness to agree to disagree are the mark of someone with whom i wish to have many more exchanges. :>
ed