http://www.ljworld.com/section/citynews/story/200254

Channel trap used to block Fox News
Lawrence resident played part in brainstorming device

J-W Staff and Wire Reports

Monday, March 28, 2005

Lawrence resident Joshua Montgomery and his friend Sam Kimery were at a screening of the documentary "Outfoxed" -- a polemic against Rupert Murdoch and his conservative Fox News Channel -- in Tulsa last August when the idea hit them: What if you could just block Fox News Channel out?

"I turned to him and said, ‘How easy would it be to trap out the channel?'" Montgomery said, "and he looked back and said, ‘Not very hard.'"

The result of their collaboration is a product called the "Fox Blocker," a tiny silver bit of metal that screws into the backs of most televisions and allows people to filter out Fox News.

To be precise, the Fox Blocker is a remarketed, not a new, product. Channel traps have been used by cable companies for years, but never marketed as the antidote to a controversial network.

"Basically, when you order a blocker, you tell us what channel Fox News is on your cable system, and then we program the trap to block that channel out," Montgomery said.

Since the pair launched www.foxblocker.com and began selling the channel traps over the Internet, Montgomery estimated they have sold nearly 1,000. The proceeds from the sales, he said, will be donated to a media watchdog group.

The product has attracted plenty of attention -- some complimentary and some angry. Kimery said he's even had death threats.

"Apparently the making of terroristic threats against those who don't share your views is a high art form among a certain core audience," said Kimery, who lives in Tulsa.

"The most frequent e-mail I get is the, ‘Why don't you sell a blocker for all the left-wing media out there?'" Montgomery said.

While Fox News may be controversial, a Fox spokeswoman at the station's New York headquarters said the channel's ratings speak for themselves. For the first three months of this year, Fox has been averaging 1.62 million viewers in prime-time, compared with CNN's 805,000, according to Nielsen Media Research.

But Kimery and Montgomery's motives go deeper than preventing people from watching the channel, which Kimery acknowledges can be done without the Blocker. He likens the device to burning a draft card, a tangible example of disagreement. And he's taking this message to the network's advertisers. After buying the $8.95 device online, would-be blockers are shown a letter that they can send to advertisers via the Fox Blocker site.

"The point is not to block the channel or block free speech but to raise awareness," said Kimery, who works in the tech industry.

Still, despite a perception that Fox leans to the right, some media critics think the station provides an important glimpse into a political point of view. Matthew Felling, media director for the Center for Media and Public Affairs, said people who lean left should not necessarily tune out Fox News.

"It's tough to engage in an argument when you're not participating in it," Felling said. "It's just one more layer in the wall that the right and the left are building in between each other."

Montgomery, on the other hand, think the blocker's wall-building powers are a positive.

"Kids will no longer be exposed to right-wing nut jobs," he said.


_________________________________________________________________

Kinda sad. :(

sad? I have fox news channel locked so I skip right over it. (same with PAX network and Oxygen)

If only there was a current network scripted dramedy that brought this issue to light.....;)

further proof the FNC is leading the pack and CNN, CBS, ABC, & NBC are obsolete :up:

While I certainly can respect someone wanting to capitalize on the emotionalism of much of the Left [although I thought capitalism was evil? Why isn't he giving it away?], this reminds me of a person sitting at a table having a 'debate', with his fingers in his ears saying Lalala, i can't hear you, lalala.
This kind of thing, imho, only makes them look even stupider and less openminded/tolerant. If they know FNC is so wrong, and the news from ABC, CBS, MSNBC, whatever, is so right, how come they're so scared of it?

further proof the FNC is leading the pack and CNN, CBS, ABC, & NBC are obsolete :up:


that makes a lot of sense -rolleyes-

If only they had a "channel selector" on their tv, so they choose what to watch. I guess I'll go invent one. It certainly sounds like a good idea.

that makes a lot of sense -rolleyes-why the rolleyes?

If FOX News was a horrible piece of shit, why are so many people afraid of it?

further proof the FNC is leading the pack and CNN, CBS, ABC, & NBC are obsolete :up:


I think it is further proof that there are plenty of idiots in this country. I don't think it is further proof of FNC leading the pack. I think the ratings are proof enough of that. :lol:

why the rolleyes?

If FOX News was a horrible piece of shit, why are so many people afraid of it?

nobody's afraid of it. it's not a credible news source. if you want real news, pick up a Washington Post or something. and to say that other news organizations is obsolete is completely ignorant. what ever happened to checks and balances? should there be just one super-power that makes all the decisions and spins the news to fit their agenda? give me fucking break!

Are people so stupid that they can't just not select the channel?

Hmm, I'll bet the market for a device that makes a TV only get FOX would even be bigger.

www.foxblaster.com

Are people so stupid that they can't just not select the channel?


Do you really want an answer to this? ;) Or they could use the add/delete channel function.

Hmm, I'll bet the market for a device that makes a TV only get FOX would even be bigger.

www.foxblaster.com


well, TNN would have to be on there as well

well, TNN would have to be on there as well


Hey, that's Spike TV. Get with the program.

Or how about a button that could silence the people on TV, so they don't have to listen to it? Or one that even stops the television from producing ANY propaganda, left, right, or marketing?

""The point is not to block the channel "

Well, actually, that *is* the point of something called the FoxBlocker.

""Kids will no longer be exposed to right-wing nut jobs," he said."

But porn, violence, language, sex-on-first-date, and patients starving to death, no problem.

Fox has been averaging 1.62 million viewers in prime-time, compared with CNN's 805,000, according to Nielsen Media Research.

That is all I have to say.

nobody's afraid of it. it's not a credible news source. if you want real news, pick up a Washington Post or something. and to say that other news organizations is obsolete is completely ignorant. what ever happened to checks and balances? should there be just one super-power that makes all the decisions and spins the news to fit their agenda? give me fucking break!

Exactly why you should be *supporting* FNC. That thinking is exactly what caused the growth and success of FNC. And here are some tolerant liberals who are so afraid--or whatever--of being exposed to FNC, that they create something to block it from harming their little tv.
If FNC is causing this much of a backlash, I agree, it must be doing *something* the left is afraid of.

"The proceeds from the sales, he said, will be donated to a media watchdog group."

I'm betting it's not the Media Research Center. Anyone know which 'watchdog' [which is mediaspeak for "anti-Republican"] group gets the money?

Do you really want an answer to this? ;) Or they could use the add/delete channel function.

One thing I don't like about my cable box, it doesn't have this feature :(. When I cycle through the guide, I have to see EVERY channel offered [although I can block the adult programs' titles from being displayed.] I really liked that feature on my Dish PVR. Two steps forward, one step back, I guess; the box I've got now is an overall improvement, but it's not perfect.

interesting...

maybe i could sell similar ones that block CNN and just milk the emotional response from conservatives and donate the money to myself

"The proceeds from the sales, he said, will be donated to a media watchdog group."

I'm betting it's not the Media Research Center. Anyone know which 'watchdog' [which is mediaspeak for "anti-Republican"] group gets the money?


I agree with your point here. They should offer it free, if anything. I personally think it's kind of useless. If you don't like FNC, don't watch it. It's like having a chip in your radio to block out rap music each time a song comes on.

nobody's afraid of it. it's not a credible news source. if you want real news, pick up a Washington Post or something. and to say that other news organizations is obsolete is completely ignorant. what ever happened to checks and balances?

W/O Fox what is the "check" to CNN and MSNBC? W/O the Washington Times what is the "check" to the Washington Post? IMHO no where do people seem to be more hypocritical than when they start debating left/right media bias... reading/listening/watching the "debates" though is always worth a :lol:

W/O Fox what is the "check" to CNN and MSNBC? W/O the Washington Times what is the "check" to the Washington Post? IMHO no where do people seem to be more hypocritical than when they start debating left/right media bias... reading/listening/watching the "debates" though is always worth a :lol:

I see what you mean and it makes some sense. I think FNC is still in a league of it's own and it's bias does not help the check and balances of the media but just skews the lines too much. I'm all for checks and balances, but FNC seems so far to the right that it's not helping balance anything.

FNC seems so far to the right that it's not helping balance anything.

Of course that wouldn't have anything to do w/ how far to the left you are would it ;) The simple reason Fox is doing so well is that it's the only network out there that's presenting the spin (and IMHO all news is spin, pure investigative reporting is a thing of the past, if it even really existed) it does. If there was more competition in the media, presenting a wider range of views/reporting I don't think there would be nearly as much outrage as there seems to be leveled at Fox since Fox wouldn't seem as out of the "mainstream" as it does now.

I just removed the Fox News channel from my Tivo's list of channels. Of course, I also removed all the religious channels, all the sales channels, most of the sports channels, and overall roughly 33% of the channels I get. Tivo doesn't record them, so I don't see 'em. Easy.

Blocking FOX NEWS isn't the way to change things....<i>If</i>, in fact, you think things need changing.

"A fool and his money are soon parted"

1,000 units indeed.

Stupid asses.

If FNC is full of stupids watching, where are the smarties watching CNN, CBS, NBC, et al..? :lol: Why aren't their ratings going up? It must ne a VRW conspiracy.

:lol: But were it CNN it would surely be censorship. It is certainly fine with me, though. I'd hate to think liberals would ever look at other viewpoints -wink-

:lol: But were it CNN it would surely be censorship. It is certainly fine with me, though. I'd hate to think liberals would ever look at other viewpoints -wink-


they have other viewpoints on network news. fox is all one sided. when I watch the evening news, I heard good and bad about both the Repubs and Dems. On Fox news, it's only repubs are good and/or dems bad.

Couldnt I give them the wrong channel number and block anything I wanted?

I see what you mean and it makes some sense. I think FNC is still in a league of it's own and it's bias does not help the check and balances of the media but just skews the lines too much. I'm all for checks and balances, but FNC seems so far to the right that it's not helping balance anything.

FNC is no farther to the right than CNN is to the left

FNC is no farther to the right than CNN is to the left

other than what you're GOP party tells you, do you have anything to back this up? I realize you're probably not willing to see Outfoxed or read Newsweek or watch PBS, but there is plenty of coverage regarding the bullshit factor and bias of FNC.

read this (if you care)
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067


and also, how would you know? do you even watch or read reliable and accurate sources? Or do you just watch FNC unquestioningly and assume it's all correct and everyone who says otherwise is wrong?

they have other viewpoints on network news. fox is all one sided. when I watch the evening news, I heard good and bad about both the Repubs and Dems. On Fox news, it's only repubs are good and/or dems bad.

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050314/2005-03-14T150130Z_01_N11229264_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-MEDIA-REPORT-DC.html

This study has been cited often recently. It is about how the press was 3 times more negative on Bush than Kerry during the campaign. They do say that fox was twice as likely to be positive than negative. That certainly seems to indicate that they are more conservative, but it doesn't bolster the point that they are "all one sided".

My guess is that you notice "pro conservative" more because you simply aren't use to seeing it on the news. Thank you Fox News -wink-

they have other viewpoints on network news. fox is all one sided. when I watch the evening news, I heard good and bad about both the Repubs and Dems. On Fox news, it's only repubs are good and/or dems bad.


C'mon. Hannity & Cadaver is a pretty balanced program. ;)

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050314/2005-03-14T150130Z_01_N11229264_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-MEDIA-REPORT-DC.html

This study has been cited often recently. It is about how the press was 3 times more negative on Bush than Kerry during the campaign. They do say that fox was twice as likely to be positive than negative. That certainly seems to indicate that they are more conservative, but it doesn't bolster the point that they are "all one sided".

My guess is that you notice "pro conservative" more because you simply aren't use to seeing it on the news. Thank you Fox News -wink-


so it's the Press that is wrong and not President Bush? couldn't they just have been reporting all the bad shit he's done? blaming the messenger doesn't seem to hold up here.

EDIT to add: And I'm not saying I think the media (as a whole) is doing a very good job regarding accuracy and responsibility, but the FNC certainly isn't helping steer things in the right direction.

C'mon. Hannity & Cadaver is a pretty balanced program. ;)


:lol:

so it's the Press that is wrong and not President Bush? couldn't they just have been reporting all the bad shit he's done? blaming the messenger doesn't seem to hold up here.

Couldn't it be the other way around just as likely? :confused:

Look, if you think all the other channels are actually balanced and that there is not a liberal slant to the bulk of media that is not Fox News, we probably won't resolve anything.

Some people don't believe the bulk of the media is liberal. That's fine. Most people think it is. That's fine, too.

I don't get much, if any, news from Fox News simply because I don't like to watch news at all. I prefer to get it while at work on the computer. But I'd rather watch one with a conservative slant than a liberal slant, simply because it is a novelty. :)

they have other viewpoints on network news. fox is all one sided. when I watch the evening news, I heard good and bad about both the Repubs and Dems. On Fox news, it's only repubs are good and/or dems bad.Your own biases are preventing you from noticing a liberal bias in these other media outlets. Everyone knows FNC has a conservative bias. But you don't have to look too hard to notice the liberal bias with AP articles, in the New York Times, etc. There's bias everywhere.

"The proceeds from the sales, he said, will be donated to a media watchdog group."

I'm betting it's not the Media Research Center. Anyone know which 'watchdog' [which is mediaspeak for "anti-Republican"] group gets the money?

If I had to guess:


read this (if you care)
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067


That's the first one I thought of when I first read that sentence from the article.

Your own biases are preventing you from noticing a liberal bias in these other media outlets. Everyone knows FNC has a conservative bias. But you don't have to look too hard to notice the liberal bias with AP articles, in the New York Times, etc. There's bias everywhere.


I'm aware that the bias exists, but the difference between the bias of FNC and the rest of the media seems to be wildly different. You don't have to be a liberal to see that.

I'm aware that the bias exists, but the difference between the bias of FNC and the rest of the media seems to be wildly different. You don't have to be a liberal to see that.


I'd rather have in-your-face bias like FNC in big media than hidden bias like CNN and the NYT.

from the washington post (oh shit, sorry it's from such a biased news source :p)


washingtonpost.com
'Fox Blocker' Gets Mixed Reception

By Emily Fredrix
Associated Press
Saturday, March 26, 2005; Page C09


It's not that Sam Kimery objects to the views expressed on Fox News. The creator of the "Fox Blocker" contends that the channel is not news at all.

Kimery figures he's sold about 100 of the little silver bits of metal that screw into the back of most television sets, allowing people to filter out Fox News Channel.

Since the blocker's August debut, the Tulsa resident has also received thousands of e-mails, both angry and complimentary -- as well as a few death threats.

"Apparently the making of terroristic threats against those who don't share your views is a high art form among a certain core audience," said Kimery, 45.

Formerly a registered Republican, even a precinct captain, Kimery said he became an independent in the 1990s because the state party stopped taking input from its everyday members.

Kimery contends that Fox News's top management dictates a conservative journalistic bias, that inaccuracies are never retracted and what winds up on the air is more opinion than news. "I might as well be reading tabloids out of the grocery store," he says. "Anything to get a rise out of the viewer and to reinforce certain retrograde notions."

A spokeswoman at Fox's New York headquarters said the channel's ratings speak for themselves. For the first three months of this year, Fox News Channel has been averaging 1.62 million viewers in prime time, compared with cable competitor CNN's 805,000, according to Nielsen Media Research.

Kimery's motives go deeper than keeping people from watching the channel, which he acknowledges can be done without the blocker. But he likens his device to burning a draft card, a tangible example of disagreement.

And he's sending that message to the network's advertisers. After buying the $8.95 device online, purchasers are offered a letter that they can forward to advertisers via the Fox Blocker site.

"The point is not to block the channel or block free speech but to raise awareness," said Kimery, who works in the tech industry.

The blocker has even made its way into a TV series: A recent episode of the ABC drama "Boston Legal" alluded to the device. The original script mentioned Fox News, but ABC had the references removed.

Kimery doesn't use the device himself; his remote is programmed to only a half-dozen channels. Plus he occasionally feels the need to tune in to Fox News Channel for something "especially heinous."

The boisterous conversations on Fox News Channel may be why the station is so popular, said Matthew Felling, media director for the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a nonprofit, nonpartisan watchdog group. And despite a perception that Fox leans to the right, Felling said, that doesn't mean people who lean left should tune out.

"It's tough to engage in an argument when you're not participating in it," Felling said. "It's just one more layer in the wall that the right and the left are building in between each other."



© 2005 The Washington Post Company

other than what you're GOP party tells you, do you have anything to back this up? I realize you're probably not willing to see Outfoxed or read Newsweek or watch PBS, but there is plenty of coverage regarding the bullshit factor and bias of FNC.

read this (if you care)
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067


and also, how would you know? do you even watch or read reliable and accurate sources? Or do you just watch FNC unquestioningly and assume it's all correct and everyone who says otherwise is wrong?


From FAIR's "About us" page

As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information.

or from the letter by the founder
Well-financed right-wing groups like the misnamed Accuracy In Media (AIM) were harassing journalists who uncovered unpleasant truths about poverty, inequality, government corruption or U.S. military and nuclear policy.

Also take a look at their "activism" page http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=6

Sounds like from the onset one could make an argument FAIR and FoxNews will probably on opposing sides in many things.


This is why I think people tend to get hypocritical when talking about media bias. First few seem to recognize bias is relative to where you are looking from, so finding an absolute scale of Fox is here, CNN is here, MSNBC is here, etc is impossible. Second even fewer, when arguing this issue, seem to recognize there is the potential for bias in "media watchdog" groups as well. A good example is that I listening to NPR's "On the Media" the other day where they were having a special show on media bias. They ran a piece bout Fox News and how pro-Bush they were all the time making snide remarks about Bush, the admin and Fox... yep real unbiased reporting there -rolleyes-

From FAIR's "About us" page



or from the letter by the founder


Also take a look at their "activism" page http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=6

Sounds like from the onset one could make an argument FAIR and FoxNews will probably on opposing sides in many things.


alright, fair enough. I guess I do have my blinders on (at least I'm willing to admit that and willing to make an attempt to see things a little differently, though)

so disregard the fair.org, but I've seen enough from FNC that the other news stations would not be allowed to get away with. All I'm talking about is media responsibility and accuracy. The whole media is to blame for this. FNC just happens to really piss me off about it since their agenda is the polar opposite of what I think is right.

I'm aware that the bias exists, but the difference between the bias of FNC and the rest of the media seems to be wildly different. You don't have to be a liberal to see that.

You have a bunch of liberal media outlets and FNC is one entity leaning right. Sure, you don't have to be a liberal to see that.

You have a bunch of liberal media outlets and FNC is one entity leaning right. Sure, you don't have to be a liberal to see that.


I'm talking about the degree to which they lean. try reading my posts

other than what you're GOP party tells you, do you have anything to back this up? I realize you're probably not willing to see Outfoxed or read Newsweek or watch PBS, but there is plenty of coverage regarding the bullshit factor and bias of FNC.

read this (if you care)
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067


and also, how would you know? do you even watch or read reliable and accurate sources? Or do you just watch FNC unquestioningly and assume it's all correct and everyone who says otherwise is wrong?

I occasionally watch cnn
and about the only thing I watch on FNC is Brit Hume's show. and I do think FNC is biased in a lot of their shows
at least I'm not so blinded as to not see bias where it occurs

"The point is not to block the channel or block free speech but to raise awareness," said Kimery, who works in the tech industry.


Hippy tactics :grunt:



:lol:

I'm talking about the degree to which they lean. try reading my posts

By who's measurement? Yours? They probably do lean far to the right? By mine I think they may lean a little further to the right than some of the others lean to left, and not so much as others lean to the left.

I'm talking about the degree to which they lean. try reading my posts


I think you are probably talking more about their opinions shows. They don't have many Jessie Jacksons. Those are on other channels.

I think you are probably talking more about their opinions shows. They don't have many Jessie Jacksons. Those are on other channels.

I guess so. I haven't really watched their regular news reports, so I'm commenting on the opinion-type shows. Those are what I have a problem with (maybe I should have said that earlier :D)

So does everyone get that? I'm ONLY referring to the opiniony talk shows and not their basic news reports. I guess I kind of derailed the thread. My bad. Either way, my posts in the beginning of the thread still stand true. I think it's a pretty stupid idea.

I guess so. I haven't really watched their regular news reports, so I'm commenting on the opinion-type shows. Those are what I have a problem with (maybe I should have said that earlier :D)


Well who cares which way they lean then. They make no secret that they are opinion shows.

I think you'll find that most conservatives would say that having Tucker Carlson representing the right on CNN is a joke as well.

Well who cares which way they lean then. They make no secret that they are opinion shows.

I think you'll find that most conservatives would say that having Tucker Carlson representing the right on CNN is a joke as well.


well, yeah I hate him too. I guess it's the pundits that drive me crazy.

The dude who founded FAIR was an ACLU lawyer and wrote for Rolling stone and Mother Jones. Hm, surely unbiased.

FNC, though called 'News Channel', is predominately *not* news. It's mostly news discussion/analysis/opinion. As such, it *can* be biased, and I don't have a problem with it. Every section in the Washington Post or whatever, other than the Opinion section, or every episode of World News Tonight, should be as close to 'unbiased news/journalism' as possible. They're not. That's the difference.

So, wow, you're against people even expressing their *opinion* on an *opinion* show. Definitely sounds like you need the Fox Blocker. Do you like all free speech, or just those opinions that agree with yours? I personally have enough faith in my own opinion to be able to deal with a member of an opposing political viewpoint, expressing his opinion *on a relevant program/media.* It's when it's camoflaged as 'news' that I get my dander up.

The dude who founded FAIR was an ACLU lawyer and wrote for Rolling stone and Mother Jones. Hm, surely unbiased.

FNC, though called 'News Channel', is predominately *not* news. It's mostly news discussion/analysis/opinion. As such, it *can* be biased, and I don't have a problem with it. Every section in the Washington Post or whatever, other than the Opinion section, or every episode of World News Tonight, should be as close to 'unbiased news/journalism' as possible. They're not. That's the difference.

So, wow, you're against people even expressing their *opinion* on an *opinion* show. Definitely sounds like you need the Fox Blocker. I personally have enough faith in my own opinion to be able to deal with a member of an opposing political viewpoint, expressing his opinion *on a relevant program/media.* It's when it's camoflaged as 'news' that I get my dander up.


fox new tries to pass itself off as a legitimate news channel and not an opinion channel. they hide the opinion in the news they present. It's called the FOX NEWS CHANNEL not the OPINION channel.

Claiming to be all opinion is just an excuse to hide from being accountable. You can't have the best of both worlds.


Does everyone else then, at least, agree with dtcarson that FNC is not a real news channel then?

fox new tries to pass itself off as a legitimate news channel and not an opinion channel. they hide the opinion in the news they present. It's called the FOX NEWS CHANNEL not the OPINION channel.


And CNN doesn't hide [liberal] opinion in their presentation of the news? You may not see it because you lean left, but I surely do.

Their name is Fox News Channel, because they're *about* the news.
Just like CNN tries to pass itself off as a legitimate news channel, by calling itself C... NEWS network, [forget what the C stands for],and calling their shows 'NEWS' programs when in most cases they are thinlyveiled opinion show veiled as news.

I guess you're against ABC as well, since I distinctly saw non-Americans on the channel once; and even though I'm in the Eastern time zone, I still get Central Broadcasting Service.

Hell, Fox News Channel doesn't even do any news about *foxes*, how's that for truth in advertising?

And I didn't say they are *not* news, I said the majority of their programming is news opinion/personality/analysis.

Shows like 'The Oreilly Factor' are not 'news' shows, they are 'about' the news, and OReilly's opinions on the news. Comparing that show to something like World News Tonight is comparing apples and oranges.

And CNN doesn't hide [liberal] opinion in their presentation of the news? You may not see it because you lean left, but I surely do.

I admitted there is a similar bias earlier.

I admitted there is a similar bias earlier.


Yeah, but even with that admission, you still seem to be directing your ire at only one entity.

Their name is Fox News Channel, because they're *about* the news.
Just like CNN tries to pass itself off as a legitimate news channel, by calling itself C... NEWS network, [forget what the C stands for],and calling their shows 'NEWS' programs when in most cases they are thinlyveiled opinion show veiled as news.

I guess you're against ABC as well, since I distinctly saw non-Americans on the channel once; and even though I'm in the Eastern time zone, I still get Central Broadcasting Service.

Hell, Fox News Channel doesn't even do any news about *foxes*, how's that for truth in advertising?

And I didn't say they are *not* news, I said the majority of their programming is news opinion/personality/analysis.



that may be the dumbest thing I've ever read.

this thread is off the original topic. I'm not going to waste any more of my time bickering over this pointless discussion.


forget it. I don't have the patience or desire to continue this further.

No, just get the dtcarsonBlocker.

The fox thing was silly, I admit--Do you care to express how the rest of the post is the 'dumbest thing you've ever read', when it was based on assertions and logic you yourself used just mere posts ahead? Or do you just insult someone and then run?

Personally, I think calling the propaganda mills that pass themselves off as "mainstream media news programs" legitimate news, while somehow being offended that Fox News COMMENTATORS and OPINION shows actually express their COMMENTS and OPINIONS, I think that's pretty inane, but that may be just me.

No, just get the dtcarsonBlocker.

The fox thing was silly, I admit--Do you care to express how the rest of the post is the 'dumbest thing you've ever read', when it was based on assertions and logic you yourself used just mere posts ahead? Or do you just insult someone and then run?

Personally, I think calling the propaganda mills that pass themselves off as "mainstream media news programs" legitimate news, while somehow being offended that Fox News COMMENTATORS and OPINION shows actually express their COMMENTS and OPINIONS, I think that's pretty inane, but that may be just me.

I agree with the part about the "news" networks should not be able to get away calling themselves news when it's opinion (if that's what you're say). Sorry about the post, I didn't mean it as an insult (sorry), but this thread is frustrating. I do have to leave work though, so I won't be able to continue the discussion until tomorrow......although I should probably avoid this thread entirely. ;)

Again, all I have meant is that I don't like pundits and I don't think "news" organizations should be allowed to call opinion "news." that's all. if my other posts said or implied otherwise, please disregard it then.

Again, all I have meant is that I don't like pundits and I don't think "news" organizations should be allowed to call opinion "news." that's all. if my other posts said or implied otherwise, please disregard it then.


No problem with such an opinion. In many ways, I agree with you. However, if you are going to call organizations that are guilty of this out, you need to be equally critical.

I see what you're saying, but I don't have a problem with a network calling itself a certain thing. "Spike" has nothing to do with Spikes, or railroad building, or anything--but the individual program names tell you what the program is about.
World News Tonight, I expect to be a show reporting World News.
OReilly Factor, I expect it to be somewhat 'about' or 'by' OReilly. Etc. And most people don't call shows like that, or Dayside with Linda Vester, 'hard news shows', like they think of 60 Minutes or whatever. So, i agree with you, that " I don't think "news" organizations should be allowed to call opinion "news"" on the program level, and the best place to start that would be to deal with the bias on the 'news' programs on MSNBC, CBS, CNN, etc, as you admitted it's a problem there, and in allegedly 'news'- oriented shows, not 'opinions on the news'.

Again, all I have meant is that I don't like pundits and I don't think "news" organizations should be allowed to call opinion "news." that's all. if my other posts said or implied otherwise, please disregard it then.

Personally I think you're better off going the opposite way... recognize that every "news" organization has it's "side" and will field it's "pundits" accordingly and then watch/read/listen to enough of them to try to form an opinion that way.

In terms of their news ANALYSTS and COMMENTATORS, yes, they are conservatives. Is their news itself biased, though? No, I don't think there's evidence of that. They do present items about the positive things going in Iraq, for example, but they do show all the killing and violence as well.

Personally I think you're better off going the opposite way... recognize that every "news" organization has it's "side" and will field it's "pundits" accordingly and then watch/read/listen to enough of them to try to form an opinion that way.

Good point. A news organization can show its bias in the types of stories it even chooses to present. For instance, I've been reading--from conversative columnists--about a lot of similarities between the Terri Schiavo case, and the Elian Gonzalez case. Not about the cases themselves, but about the sudden desire for 'federalism.' Why do we not hear any of these comparisons from the mainstream media? From what I've read, they are very valid comparisons. [If we have, well, then ignore what I just typed--I don't watch network news.]

Another good example was during a school shooting type thing a couple years back. Guy came into school, started shooting up; a couple students overpowered him, without killing him or anyone else, and saved the day. Great story. But 97% of the news media reporting this news left out one important bit of information--those students *left the school*, went to their car, and got *their own personal guns* that were in their cars. They were not unarmed. They were able to wield the guns efficiently and effectively to negate a threat. Why was that not mentioned? Because in the majority of journalist's minds, 'guns = bad', so it wouldn't even cross their minds to report that bit of information. That is the kind of 'subtle bias' that is most creeping. The bias is not only in what stories are reported, but how they're reported, and what facts are left out, though they may be relevant. [Yes, I read Bernard Goldberg's "Bias". Excellent, frightening, eye-opening book--anyone who's interested in truthful news should read it and its sequel Arrogance.]

Hell, Fox News Channel doesn't even do any news about *foxes*, how's that for truth in advertising?I thought it meant most of the women on it were foxes.

nobody's afraid of it. it's not a credible news source. if you want real news, pick up a Washington Post or something. and to say that other news organizations is obsolete is completely ignorant. what ever happened to checks and balances? should there be just one super-power that makes all the decisions and spins the news to fit their agenda? give me fucking break!

:lol:
I was just waiting for this kind of paranoid post.

Here you go:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17457


By Carol Gould
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 28, 2005

The BBC has done it again.



On 13th March on the 10 o’clock UK BBC news broadcast, images were offered of a large crowd of Palestinian men in a fierce street fight. The level of violence was palpable and the men were pitching large objects at one another.



The commentator, James Reynolds, did not explain the nature of the pitched battle but instead said that these young students in Hebron were indeed fighting in the streets, their anger and frustration exacerbated by looking up and still seeing an Israeli presence on their streets. The next shot showed an Israeli flag flying on a wall outside what seemed to be a military outpost.



I was dumbfounded. I had just read on the Internet several reports of violent clashes in the Palestinian territories between Hamas and Fatah. The background to this is the power-struggle that is ensuing amongst various factions for ultimate supremacy in what they envisage as a Palestinian state. I called the BBC and attempted to point out that James Reynolds had not provided a responsible report but had put his own spin on the riot: blame Israel for the street fighting. No sooner had I begun to explain to my interlocutor the true nature of the pitched battle than he interrupted me with what seemed considerable irritation if not anger.



My temper began to fray and I asked him if he had ever been to Israel. ‘No,’ he said, to which I responded that I had been many times, and he interjected, ‘That doesn’t make you an authority!’ I went on to observe that the rioting ‘students,’ whom James Reynolds had implied were suffering deprivation under Israeli rule, were all extraordinarily well-dressed and outfitted (my point was to have been that oppressed peoples do not have such energy and freedom of expression), but he interrupted me again and snapped, ‘What does that have to do with anything?’ and as I tried to make the point about Israeli rule obviously not causing them poverty, he began to rant about Israel.



Please keep in mind, dear reader, that the man on the other end of the telephone at the BBC Comments Line is supposed to take down viewer comments and complaints and pass them on to the program makers and management, not embark on an attack on the caller. I offered the man a potted history of the Jews and of the State of Israel and he began to calm down. In addition, I reminded him that billions in aid destined for the Palestinian people were unaccounted for and that Hosni Mubarak had demanded of Arafat some years ago an accounting of the aid provided from the Arab League. Israel’s fault?



After the call I was angrier at the BBC Viewer Services man than at the news reporter. Then along came Fox News. Their on-the hour-report at 11PM gave an accurate account of the events in Hebron. They reported, without fanfare, that Hamas and Fatah factions were fighting it out on the streets of Hebron and that -- of all things -- men from Islamic Jihad had weighed in to break up the riot. Their footage was identical to that shown on the BBC but no mention was made of Israeli oppression having caused the men’s anger.

According to the wire services, 'A brawl broke out on Sunday between Hamas and Fatah students on the eve of a ballot for the student council at Hebron University. At least nine students were injured.' The Jerusalem Post reported: 'The Fatah students accused Hamas of violating regulations banning parties from campaigning 24 hours before the election. The two sides used stones and clubs during the melee, which was broken up by Islamic Jihad supporters who acted as a buffer to end the fight.'

It is astonishing that the European media try to find every imaginable way to blame Israel for the events in the Middle East.

One is reminded of the joke about the Spanish football team being driven by a Dutchman through Belgium when their coach is hit by a German trucker. The United Nations convenes --- to pass a motion to blame Israel.

No sooner had I watched the BBC’s report on the disturbances in Hebron than a programme was broadcast on BBC Four TV hosted by former Conservative MP Michael Portillo. He had decided to explore the world of cartoonists in the Middle East.

Portillo is usually fairly pro-Blair/Bush but he spent 80% of the programme visiting with a poisonous and scary Palestinian woman cartoonist who dreams of the day when ‘Palestine's army’ will defeat the Enemy.
She is part of the family of a terrorist and the programme tried to show what a desperate life she has 'trapped in Gaza City,' and of course what a desperate existence Palestinians have under the heel of the IDF.

Then we went to Israel for 20% of the show about the cartoonist of 'Dry Bones.' Portillo made sure to say that the gentleman came to Israel from New York a rabid Zionist. (Throughout my lifetime it has been impossible to explain to Europeans the concept of ‘Zionism;’ the very continent whose virulent anti-Semitism spurred the secular Theodor Herzl to establish a Zionist movement seems to feel this is a form of rampant fascist imperialism by galloping Jewish hordes.)



Portillo showed the Israeli cartoonist at his moshav. The group of guests, all well-dressed and enjoying the opulence of a particularly sprawling garden and dining table, heard about his swimming pool and the loads of money he has.

I have never seen such a biased program.



The Palestinian woman's cartoons were grotesque and really quite vile beyond words. One showed Ariel Sharon washing his hands in blood in a US-manufactured basin whilst he stood on a rug with the UN symbol. (If only the UN-adoring Left would understand that the terrorists even hate the UN, too. They just want everyone dead, including the UN...) Her work was violent and nasty and had no humor whatsoever. Portillo had NIL understanding of Dry Bones' Jewish humor, and it was unfortunate that he kept referring to the two peoples as opponents who so detest each other. Because so few non-Jews in Great Britain visit Israel or get to know Israelis, the concept of a nation filled with angry, violent and hate-filled Jews misrepresents the majority of the population. It is regrettable that the media, and now Mr. Portillo, try to portray Israelis as so full of hate and ill-will towards their neighbors.



The Palestinian cartoonist was quick to tell the interviewer that she had a vision of a formidable Palestinian army prepared to take on the Jews. She did not have one ounce of compassion for Israelis, whilst on the other side even the families of the victims of suicide bombers want to work for peace.

Michael Portillo’s program demonstrated a breathtaking lack of understanding of the Jewish and Israeli mind. It was a documentary about humor: inasmuch as the Jews have given the world Jack Benny, Sid Caesar, Milton Berle, George Burns, Walter Matthau and scores of other legendary entertainers, it is a source of dismay that one BBC program can portray the Jewish State as a nation devoid of compassion when its violent neighbors have time and again made it clear since 1948 that only one thing will bring them true joy: Israel’s ultimate destruction.

I thought it meant most of the women on it were foxes.

they are always showing off their legs

I'd rather have in-your-face bias like FNC in big media than hidden bias like CNN and the NYT.

So would I.

Having said that, the only program I watch on Fox with any regularity is Brit Hume at 5:00 PM (CST). He does interview, most of the time, people who know what they are talking about - Dennis Ross is a prime example.

I watch CNN very little - once in awhile I tune in to Crossfire. & Inside Politics.

fox new tries to pass itself off as a legitimate news channel and not an opinion channel. they hide the opinion in the news they present. It's called the FOX NEWS CHANNEL not the OPINION channel.

Claiming to be all opinion is just an excuse to hide from being accountable. You can't have the best of both worlds.


Does everyone else then, at least, agree with dtcarson that FNC is not a real news channel then?


and the rest of the networks don't do it?

:lol:
I was just waiting for this kind of paranoid post.

Here you go:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17457


so it is or it isn't a news source? see the thread.

and the rest of the networks don't do it?


yes, they do it too

see my earlier post

If they relabel this thing, "STOP THE inHANNITY!" I think it would sell even more.

http://www.estelmann.com/private/pics/large/remote.jpg



AMAZING!

I think Fox News is programmed to appeal to a low common demoninator, but this is exclusive of the fact that it leans rightward [which it is clumsy at doing, which might be a result of the former]. I can't stand watching the dreck that comes from Fox News any more than I can stand the liberal elitism of CNN or the others.

Maybe I haven't been clear as well. When actual "news" is reported and it is not a commentary, opinion, etc. I think that they should be unbiased and just present information. I would also be in favor of only allowing those that do this to be called "News." But I don't think that will ever happen. At least I still have CBS Nightly News to depend on. I need unbiased reporting, and I know how biased cable news channels can be.

Hmm, people seem to think that FNC's actual NEWS shows are unbiased and also seem to consider Special Report with Brit Hume to be a good example of unbiased news on FNC. He's just reporting the news and doing interviews. So was Hume just "reporting the news" when he blatantly misquoted and misrepresented FDR's statement about Social Security and privatization? ;)

Part of the problem with FNC "opinion" shows being so biased is that fans of the station really think people like Hannity and O'Reilly are reporting the news. "Thank you, Sean, for telling the public what's really happening out there." I hear it every day on his radio show from all the "great Americans" that call into his radio show.

IMO, the trend toward significant partisanship has gotten to the point where I no longer trust any source of (political) news to be true and unbiased. Not on TV, radio or in print. So I read and listen to as much as I can, understand which side of the political spectrum they tend to be on, and try to determine the truth as being somewhere in the middle. Or maybe it's more likely that both sides report the truths they want to be known, and ignore the truths they don't want known. You gotta listen to both sides.

Which leads to...

I cannot believe 1000 people have purchased this product. If you don't like FNC, CHANGE THE CHANNEL, YOU IDIOTS!!! I don't blame the makers though since they're just capitalizing on stupid people. And let's be fair, I'm quite sure CNNBuster would sell quite well too. There are idiots amongst the conservatives too. :)

Oh, and one other point. MSNBC has made a pretty obvious turn toward the right to try to get market share from FNC. I don't think you can truly lump them in with the liberal media any longer, can you?

Part of the problem with FNC "opinion" shows being so biased is that fans of the station really think people like Hannity and O'Reilly are reporting the news.

they do?
I've heard people say they base their topics off things happening in the news but I have yet to hear someone say they are reporting it

they do?
I've heard people say they base their topics off things happening in the news but I have yet to hear someone say they are reporting it
Perhaps "reporting" is the wrong word. How about delivering then? Stating. Relaying. Discussing. But no, they aren't in the field reporting news, unless you consider running your show from in front of the Schiavo hospice (and allowing the protesters to get close to the mike and let their "Give Terri water" chants come across loud and clear) being "in the field".

But if you don't think a LOT of people believe everything O'Reilly and Hannity say is the gospel truth, you don't listen to their talk shows much, where the callers praise them for telling the public the real truth, and repeat the so-called truths like parrots while demonizing the other side. You also don't listen to liberal talk shows where the right-leaning callers ditto what Hannity said a few hours before on his show.

And I'm not singling out the conservatives. Liberals are just as guilty of parroting and demonizing, though they really aren't given the same level of honest participation on righty talk shows.

Just for the record, since I'm in a vehicle most of my day, I switch back and forth between Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly on the right, Franken, Schulz and Rhodes on the left, plus one lefty and one righty from local (unsyndicated) San Diego studios. In addition, I read Time and Newsweek. I read the local San Diego U-T (which is pretty conservative). And then of course, news sites on the Internet, most of which I admit are pretty neutral or left-leaning (except this forum, of course :) ). I stopped watching TV news, and in fact, canceled cable TV completely. I haven't watched network news in years, well, except on election night...

BTW, why is it that the LOCAL, unsyndicated talk show hosts are the best? Yes, it seems there is always rhetoric, no matter which show you listen to, but it's greatly reduced for the local guys here in San Diego. Why am I in agreement so often with my local conservative talker (Hedgecock) in San Diego, but rarely so with the syndicated conservative idiots? And when I don't agree with Hedgecock's position, I still greatly respect his opinion. Probably because he uses logical, well though out arguments...truly a rarity on any talk show. :)

BTW, why is it that the LOCAL, unsyndicated talk show hosts are the best?

no idea, but I much prefer the local guys that come on before and then after limbaugh to that gas bag himself. I can rarely take more than 30 minutes of limbaugh before his ego pisses me off. but I can almost always listen to the full 3 hours of each local guy. probably partly due to them covering local issues, especially lately with our county troubles

Of course that wouldn't have anything to do w/ how far to the left you are would it ;) The simple reason Fox is doing so well is that it's the only network out there that's presenting the spin (and IMHO all news is spin, pure investigative reporting is a thing of the past, if it even really existed) it does. If there was more competition in the media, presenting a wider range of views/reporting I don't think there would be nearly as much outrage as there seems to be leveled at Fox since Fox wouldn't seem as out of the "mainstream" as it does now.

Again, there is no comparison between Fox and its competitors. No show on CNN or MSNBC is as blatantly biased as O'Reilly or Hannity. (Although, MSNBC is trying to play catchup with Joe Scarborough.) You can say CNN is leftist all you want but no one goes on CNN red-faced every night like Sean Hannity. Not to mention that everyone on Fox is biased right (with the exception of the milque-toast Alan Colmes) - Hannity, Hume, O'Reilly, etc where CNN is left or middle of the road. Never anything as outrageous as Fox. But then again, this is Fox we are talking about - the company that brings you the shittiest network TV on the planet. The Jerry Springer Show of news and entertainment.

FNC is no farther to the right than CNN is to the left

rotfl

Again, there is no comparison between Fox and its competitors. No show on CNN or MSNBC is as blatantly biased as O'Reilly or Hannity. (Although, MSNBC is trying to play catchup with Joe Scarborough.) You can say CNN is leftist all you want but no one goes on CNN red-faced every night like Sean Hannity. Not to mention that everyone on Fox is biased right (with the exception of the milque-toast Alan Colmes) - Hannity, Hume, O'Reilly, etc where CNN is left or middle of the road. Never anything as outrageous as Fox. But then again, this is Fox we are talking about - the company that brings you the shittiest network TV on the planet. The Jerry Springer Show of news and entertainment.


could have used this post yesterday ;)

Again, there is no comparison between Fox and its competitors. No show on CNN or MSNBC is as blatantly biased as O'Reilly or Hannity. (Although, MSNBC is trying to play catchup with Joe Scarborough.) You can say CNN is leftist all you want but no one goes on CNN red-faced every night like Sean Hannity. Not to mention that everyone on Fox is biased right (with the exception of the milque-toast Alan Colmes) - Hannity, Hume, O'Reilly, etc where CNN is left or middle of the road. Never anything as outrageous as Fox. But then again, this is Fox we are talking about - the company that brings you the shittiest network TV on the planet. The Jerry Springer Show of news and entertainment.

:lol: by your standard?

Did I miss something or did Fox News slander John Kerry with forged documents?

Again....If Hannity, or Oreilly are 'biased right', that's not a problem. They don't just 'report' the news.
If CNN is 'biased left', except for its opinion/commentator shows, that *is* a problem.

Is reporting live from in front of Terri Schiavo's hospital any less relevant than reporting 'live, in front of the White House' when discussing a bill that was being debated, or something like that? No matter which side you're on, the Schiavo case *is* news, and it makes as much sense to be there when reporting on it as it does to be in front of anything else when reporting.

Roger Hedgecock? I like him, I enjoy listening to him when he subs for Rush. He's generally very calm.

Local versus national: To get 'big', the national names have to appeal to a much wider audience [this goes for both left and right.] As such, they have to realize what their audience wants, and deliver more of it. A local guy has a little more freedom.

CRM114: "FOX: the company that brings you the shittiest network TV on the planet". Okay, you've totally lost all credibility. Most of what's currently on anywhere on the dial now is a crappy variation of a crappy 'reality' show, but Fox has at least four saving graces that almost make up for everything else: Married With Children. Simpsons. Futurama. Firefly. Granted, at least 2 of those they didnt' handle right, but that way virtually ensured they'd be immortalized on DVD for the fans. And 20th Century Fox brought Buffy and Angel.

Again, there is no comparison between Fox and its competitors. No show on CNN or MSNBC is as blatantly biased as O'Reilly or Hannity.

I believe a more descriptive term for O'Reilly would be opinionated, rather than biased. ;)

There's little doubt that MSNBC has programs, Hardball for example, where folks are just as biased as either O'Reilly - well maybe not Hannity - but blatantly biased nevertheless.

These guys might be geniuses. I wonder...who are the idiots who buy these "channel blockers"? Can't they just block the channel on their TV or not select it? The fact that they've gotten 1000 orders astounds me. Is there truly a sucker born every minute?

I'm talking about the degree to which they lean. try reading my posts


sad? I have fox news channel locked so I skip right over it. (same with PAX network and Oxygen)


OK. Hmmm. Oh, nevermind.

Did I miss something or did Fox News slander John Kerry with forged documents?
:lol:

I'll give one of these to my fox-hating buddy to put on his tv. the thing is i'll tell the foxblocker people that FNC channel is the channel Lost is on so my buddy will freak out when he sits down to watch Lost and finds it was blocked.

dt, good post. I have a few comments to make.

Again....If Hannity, or Oreilly are 'biased right', that's not a problem. They don't just 'report' the news.
If CNN is 'biased left', except for its opinion/commentator shows, that *is* a problem.
If I felt things were as you say they are, I'd totally agree with you. I just happen to disagree with your assessment. :)

I agree with you that if the opinion shows are biased, it's okay. But ONLY if they do NOT use the "fair and balanced" cliche at any point during their show (and yes, that includes the breaks).

The problem is that the reporters and anchors who are supposed to be reporting just the news are also biased. I gave one blatant example of bias with Hume. There are many more examples with him and reporters appearing live from the field. Fox *news* is sneakily biased toward the right, just as CNN *news* is to the left IMO, though I won't make claims on the degree of bias for each. Frankly, I really don't care which station is worse. I'll let you guys argue that. :)

Is reporting live from in front of Terri Schiavo's hospital any less relevant than reporting 'live, in front of the White House' when discussing a bill that was being debated, or something like that? No matter which side you're on, the Schiavo case *is* news, and it makes as much sense to be there when reporting on it as it does to be in front of anything else when reporting.
Honestly, if I agreed with you, then I certainly wouldn't have made an issue of it. I have a BIG problem with Hannity broadcasting from in front of the hospice. I have an even bigger problem with the fucking protesters who think it's entirely okay to protest in front of a hospice caring for 70+ other patients living out their final days, and interfering with their families being able to see them. It's disgraceful IMO.

And I think the law that you can't protest in front of a hospital should be extended to include hospices and possibly all care-giving facilities.

And just in case you are wondering, yes, I think the anti-war protesters who protest in front of the homecoming of soldiers is disgraceful too. Worse, actually.

Roger Hedgecock? I like him, I enjoy listening to him when he subs for Rush. He's generally very calm.
:lol: He can get pretty worked up on local issues. You should hear him going off about the Mount Soledad cross!

Could it be the reason for the 'fair & balanced' (and unafraid) cliche is the following?

They are simply distinguishing themselves from the majority of the other media - balancing the other media's liberal bias with their conservative bias. As far as the use of the word 'fair' - isn't it fair that the audience receive that balance?

It's disgraceful IMO.

Do you believe in the right of peaceful assembly?

Or is that that you only believe in that right if you believe in the cause of those that are exercising that right of peaceful assembly - like a protest from environmentalists for example? :lol:

Could it be the reason for the 'fair & balanced' (and unafraid) cliche is the following?

They are simply distinguishing themselves from the majority of the other media - balancing the other media's liberal bias with their conservative bias. As far as the use of the word 'fair' - isn't it fair that the audience receive that balance?

That's they way I always thought about it...

Could it be the reason for the 'fair & balanced' (and unafraid) cliche is the following?

They are simply distinguishing themselves from the majority of the other media - balancing the other media's liberal bias with their conservative bias. As far as the use of the word 'fair' - isn't it fair that the audience receive that balance?


Absolutely correct! FNC is just giving the silent majority out there an alternative to the CNN, CNBC, and MSNBC news channels, that lean to the left.

Nothing more...nothing less. If you don't like it, don't watch.

FNC is just giving the silent majority out there an alternative to the CNN, CNBC, and MSNBCI don't think FNC represents or caters to the "silent majority" any more or less than any other channel. If there was a People Magazine Channel or a National Enquirer Channel, then they would represent the "silent majority"

I think the better way to describe FNC is 'fair and balancing.'

I think the better way to describe FNC is 'fair and balancing.'


:up:


BTW, having people get whipped into a frenzy and calling their french fries "freedom fries" was funny and idiotic. Seperating 1000 people from their money for this stupid f'n thing is rotfl funny and sadly pathetic at the same time.

:up:


BTW, having people get whipped into a frenzy and calling their french fries "freedom fries" was funny and idiotic. Seperating 1000 people from their money for this stupid f'n thing is rotfl funny and sadly pathetic at the same time.

true dat

Hmm, people seem to think that FNC's actual NEWS shows are unbiased and also seem to consider Special Report with Brit Hume to be a good example of unbiased news on FNC. He's just reporting the news and doing interviews. So was Hume just "reporting the news" when he blatantly misquoted and misrepresented FDR's statement about Social Security and privatization? ;)

...


Really? I don't think in anybody in this thread, or anybody I have ever heard, are characterising Special Report as anything other than what it is, a news analysis and commentary show. I very rarely watch FNC, but like the other two members here who mentioned this show, (one true blue liberal Democrat and the other a libertarian leaning non-Republican conservative), I do occassionally watch Special Report. It is the best program of its type on television. However, I have always taken it for what it is.

The only problem I have with Special Report is Fred Barnes.

I can rememberw when he was reasonably sane (and not nearly so obnoxious and ill-mannered) - when he was a reporter for The New Republic.

FNC has clearly taken an administration's view concerning Social Security. This is shown by their continual reference to polls that show that young people favor private accounts. They fail to mention those polls that show something quite different if the question also contains the fact that their SS benefits will be reduced.

Really? I don't think in anybody in this thread, or anybody I have ever heard, are characterising Special Report as anything other than what it is, a news analysis and commentary show.

I agree.

The only 'news' (as such) is the update on the 1/2 hour.

The only 'news' (as such) is the update on the 1/2 hour.


but don't they refer to themselves (and their counterparts) as "24-hour news network[s]?" I think there's a certain responsibility that all networks should have if they call themselves a "news network" but only offer commentary/opinion and pass it off as news.

FNC has clearly taken an administration's view concerning Social Security. This is shown by their continual reference to polls that show that young people favor private accounts. They fail to mention those polls that show something quite different if the question also contains the fact that their SS benefits will be reduced.
.

That same argument could be used for the other, leftward media outlets as well. They continually use the polls that have inherently biased questions.

"A common question asks whether voters approve or disapprove of Bush’s handling of Social Security. One poll waded fully into partisan waters by asking voters whom they trust more on Social Security: Bush or Democrats in Congress? Is that a Social Security question or a generic election ballot?"
"From one perspective, there is nothing wrong with questions such as these. Today, voters know so little about the details of Social Security and its reform that they will indeed respond to potential reforms in a superficial, partisan manner. Democrats who think Bush is an illegitimate president and opposed his Iraq war will reflexively oppose anything else Bush is behind, including changes in Social Security.

But, from another perspective, these sorts of questions fail miserably in getting past voters’ initial reactions to an issue. Eventually, as many voters learn more about the full menu of reform choices, their opinions will step away from narrow partisan positions to broader self-interested positions. Sooner or later, many younger liberal Democrats will start to respond to Social Security more as young workers than as young partisans."
http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/Pollsters/DavidHill/032305.html

And you ask a leading question in your very statement:

"They fail to mention those polls that show something quite different if the question also contains the fact that their SS benefits will be reduced."

If that question were in the poll, the poll would be false. *Guaranteed-by-the-government* benefits would be reduced, from what they are today [of course, it's likely they'll be reduced by the time I get them *anyway*, so that further invalidates the question]. But the money i put 'into' the government to get that low percentage 'return' will also be reduced. Your poll question leaves out the fact that 'given a long term investment int he stock market, you *will* make more money with partially private accounts.' Which would affect thepoll results as well.
Failing to state something that is quite obvious [less money in, less "guaranteed" payout from that source] is hardly a bias in the poll.

but don't they refer to themselves (and their counterparts) as "24-hour news network[s]?" I think there's a certain responsibility that all networks should have if they call themselves a "news network" but only offer commentary/opinion and pass it off as news.

Because for 24x7 they are 'about' the news.
Anyone who takes any commercial soundbite or catchphrase purely at face value and as gospel truth, well, isn't going to care about the difference between 'news' and 'analysis.'

Because for 24x7 they are 'about' the news.
Anyone who takes any commercial soundbite or catchphrase purely at face value and as gospel truth, well, isn't going to care about the difference between 'news' and 'analysis.'


Exactly. Does anybody take catch phrases seriously?

Is NBC Thursday night "Must See TV?" Fans of Survivor and CSI would disagree.

Is TNT "The Network for Drama." Well, if you are fans of ER, L&O, and NYPB Blue, I suppose. But many would argue that HBO or F/X have better dramas.

Is ESPN the "24 hour network for sports?" Unless you consider poker a sport, hell no.

Is ESPN the "24 hour network for sports?" Unless you consider poker a sport, hell no.
Or women's basketball for that matter.

That same argument could be used for the other, leftward media outlets as well. They continually use the polls that have inherently biased questions.

I haven't heard any other media outlet take such a obviously biased view of SS reform as has FNC.

Fox has become a 'cheerleader' for the administration on this issue.

news should be news. it's held to a higher standard since it has a responsibility to report the truth (or so I thought). "must see tv" is a tagline.

But different people have different views as to what constitutes news.

Personally I don't believe that wall-to-wall coverage of the Michael Jackson trial is news; but, I'm probably in the minority.

news should be news. it's held to a higher standard since it has a responsibility to report the truth (or so I thought).

So you admit it's your base assumption that is wrong ;) News hasn't been about news since the day people discovered they can influence others and bend them to their will. Some are more obvious about it than others but I think you'll be hard pressed to find a truly non-biased "news" source out there, hell even finding one that does more than a token job of presenting both sides of the argument is hard to do...

Personally I don't believe that wall-to-wall coverage of the Michael Jackson trial is news; but, I'm probably in the minority.Bill Maher would agree with you, for one.

I have to say that I think this thread is hilarious. You guys should live in Italy for a while, where the three state TV channels (RAI Uno, RAI, Due, and RAI Tre) not only have an editorial bias, but literally their editorial content is controlled by specific political parties. Basically the top three parties each get their own news channel. The concept of an editorially unbiased news source is not only a pipe dream, but could only exist as a concept in a country with an increasing homogeneity of thought and expression in all manner of public discourse. A hundred years ago even smaller cities in the US had competing newspapers, each with a specific political bias that was at odds with the other's. Democrats would read one daily newspaper, Republicans another, and if someone suggested that they should try to get their information from an impartial or unbiased source they would be baffled at the very idea of such a thing.

A hundred years ago even smaller cities in the US had competing newspapers, each with a specific political bias that was at odds with the other's. Democrats would read one daily newspaper, Republicans another



I think the Washington Times would kill for such a marketplace around here. ;)

I think the Washington Times would kill for such a marketplace around here. ;)Probably. Charleston WV is a city that, rare for this time, continues to have two dailies that are widely read. One is a morning paper, and is liberal. The other, an afternoon daily, is more conservative. Years ago both papers became owned by the same company (I don't know the specifics) and are published in the same building, but a conscious decision was made that their editorial policies would remain distinct. This is probably a big reason why WV is, for a state of its level of income and education, has a very politically active and savvy populace.

Fox has become a 'cheerleader' for the administration on this issue.

Fox is a cheerleader for every issue the administration favors. Hannity camped out with the Schiavo loons for one. -rolleyes- The channel was the biggest sycophant for the administration going into Iraq. Their "panels" are loaded with right-wingers and very seldom to they even have left=leaning people on. Roger Ailes is a Republican chieftan, for crying out loud. Are people still arguing that Fox is no more right than CNN is left? rotfl

I believe Fox's panels are represented by both sides just as much (and probably more) than those of CNN & MSNBC for example.

About Iraq - during the invasion there is no question that FNC covered the progress of the war far better than most other media (especially electronic) outlets. I don't see anything biased about covering the progress of the war. I do something biased in what CNN did - not covering the progress of the war.

Granted, today Fox puts a more positive image on what's happening in Iraq than do other media outlets - many of which tend to emphasize the negative.

It's in the area of domestic politics that I believe Fox has become a cheerleader for the administration.

Speaking of newspapers - I can remember in Texas when the word Republican never appeared in the newspaper. ;)

If FNC is a cheerleader for Bush, then CNN was certainly a cheerleader for Clinton. You could have accurately called CNN, 'the Clinton News Network' during his adminstration.

CNN was so 'attached' to Bill that they hired all his ex-cronies. ;)

FNC just happens to really piss me off about it since their agenda is the polar opposite of what I think is right.
That about sums up my opinion on the matter. ;)

However, I don't think we need a chip to block the channel. If I don't want to watch it, I just don't flip to it.

I'll now go and read the rest of the thread. :)

That about sums up my opinion on the matter. ;)

However, I don't think we need a chip to block the channel. If I don't want to watch it, I just don't flip to it.

I'll now go and read the rest of the thread. :)

It's too bad that The Daily Worker cease publication years ago.

They most likely would represent you views to a tee.

:lol:

It's too bad that The Daily Worker cease publication years ago.

They most likely would represent you views to a tee. Hey, some people come by their socialism honestly, and then there are those like yourself who only feign it to meet college women. ;)

Hey, I almost joined the Austin Socialist Club. ;)

Originally Posted by dick_grayson
FNC just happens to really piss me off about it since their agenda is the polar opposite of what I think is right.
You've got a point there, FNC did say during the war something along the lines that they were going to present the news fair and balanced but it wasn't going to be difficult to see which side they were on.

I liked the way you phrased it originally:
"You've got a point there, FNC did say during the war something along the lines that they were going to be on America's side.'

If there's any 'bias' that is acceptable, it's to support your own country during a war.
ANd that's actually the one thing that most of us have in common; whether left or right, we should all be Americans first. If that's 'bias', so be it.

A lot of people have problems balancing the disparate principles of supporting their country during a war and opposing a war they feel is not in their country's best interest.

"Patriotism means loving your country all the time and your government when it deserves it." —Mark Twain

There were many people who thought (knew) the war was unjustified. Just look at the headline today " Panel: Agencies 'dead wrong' on Iraq WMDs"

There were many people who thought (knew) the war was unjustified. Just look at the headline today " Panel: Agencies 'dead wrong' on Iraq WMDs"Just because there weren't WMDs doesn't mean the war was unjustified. IMO history will record that the war was quite justified for a number of reasons. This is my opinion, and I don't state it as fact. My preference is that those who hold contrary opinions not state <i>those</i> as facts either. :)

Is the absence of WMDs enough to say the war was unjustified?

Just asking questions. ;)

Is the absence of WMDs enough to say the war was unjustified?

Just asking questions. ;)In my opinion, a lot of people decided whether or not the war was justified without any reasoning, and then looked for justifications <i>a posteriori</i>. For those people, the absence of WMDs is just more evidence they were right in opposing the war.

In my opinion, a lot of people decided whether or not the war was justified without any reasoning, and then looked for justifications <i>a posteriori</i>. For those people, the absence of WMDs is just more evidence they were right in opposing the war.


well in my opinion, the administration decided (whether or not it was justified without any reasoning) to invade Iraq. All we wanted was to make sure they had WMDs first before we invade. We've also wasted so much money on this that we could have spent feeding/helping our own people. I am not able to justify something where the ends appear to somewhat justify the means.

I'm not often a vocal supporter of this administration, but I believe the Bush administration really believed that Iraq posed a threat to its neighbors - the presence of WMDs made that threat more severe.

Obviously, if Iraq did pose a threat to its neighbors, Iraq posed a threat to the vital interests of the United States.

I believe it has been shown that if Iraq did indeed pose a threat - that threat was not of any great magnitude, & could have been dealt with through other less drastic means; therefore, IMO, the war was unnecessary.

I'm not often a vocal supporter of this administration, but I believe the Bush administration really believed that Iraq posed a threat to its neighbors - the presence of WMDs made that threat more severe.

Obviously, if Iraq did pose a threat to its neighbors, Iraq posed a threat to the vital interests of the United States.

I believe it has been shown that if Iraq did indeed pose a threat - that threat was not of any great magnitude, & could have been dealt with through other less drastic means; therefore, IMO, the war was unnecessary.


Well, by that logic we should have invaded N. Korea and Iran by now right?

I never felt that the threat level of Iraq to the continental US warranted the level of force applied by the US. They were never a threat to us and it was for that reason why I opposed the war. I suppose that the lack of WMD, makes the non threat position more valid, but even if they had found some WMD, without a delivery system the threat level still did not warrant a goverment toppling by the US military.

Invasions and occupations lead to insurgencies and long troop deployments, which historically, the American public does not have the stomach for. If you're going to choose that action, it should be a last resort, not a first resort.

Well, by that logic we should have invaded N. Korea and Iran by now right?

No.

There mere possession of WMDs doesn't necessarily mean that the country will use them. Has Iran or North Korea used WMDs in the past?

Did Iraq have somewhat of a history of using WMDs in the past?

Iraq clearly demonstrated by their actions in the past that they were willing to use WMDs.

I never felt that the threat level of Iraq to the continental US warranted the level of force applied by the US.

I don't believe it is necessary to pose a threat to the continental United States to warrant going to war.

As has been said a hundred times on this forum (mostly by me ;) ) if you threaten a vital interest of the United States - you threaten the United States.

well in my opinion, the administration decided (whether or not it was justified without any reasoning) to invade Iraq. All we wanted was to make sure they had WMDs first before we invade. We've also wasted so much money on this that we could have spent feeding/helping our own people. I am not able to justify something where the ends appear to somewhat justify the means.Here's the problem I have with what you wrote - you make it sound like the Bush administration invaded Iraq because they had nothing better to do that day. Now, either their justifications were wrong, their real justifications were hidden, or they are justifications you don't agree with, but they certainly had justification to invade.

Here's the problem I have with what you wrote - you make it sound like the Bush administration invaded Iraq because they had nothing better to do that day. Now, either their justifications were wrong, their real justifications were hidden, or they are justifications you don't agree with, but they certainly had justification to invade.


see Vin Vega's post a few back. that sums up how I feel as well.

I don't believe it is necessary to pose a threat to the continental United States to warrant going to war.

As has been said a hundred times on this forum (mostly by me ;) ) if you threaten a vital interest of the United States - you threaten the United States.
With sanctions and no-fly zones all over the place and US troops on the Arabian peninsula, the only oil pipelines under threat were with ones rotting in his own country.

With sanctions and no-fly zones all over the place and US troops on the Arabian peninsula, the only oil pipelines under threat were with ones rotting in his own country.

I'm not arguing against that.

I was merely responding to your statement:

I never felt that the threat level of Iraq to the continental US warranted the level of force applied by the US.

I'm not arguing against that.

I was merely responding to your statement:
Gotcha.

I think that military action was justified if Saddam continued to thwart UN inspections. But, I was in favor of bombing. Things get more sticky when you have ground troops involved as we have seen.

Could it be the reason for the 'fair & balanced' (and unafraid) cliche is the following?

They are simply distinguishing themselves from the majority of the other media - balancing the other media's liberal bias with their conservative bias. As far as the use of the word 'fair' - isn't it fair that the audience receive that balance?
Sorry, I don't buy it at all. First, consider their use of "fair." If they mean it that they balance out the other networks' bias with their own bias, then like their competition, they aren't fair either.

And for them to say they are balanced means just that. They are balanced with what they present on their station. "We report, you decide." Yeah, right...

Do you believe in the right of peaceful assembly?

Or is that that you only believe in that right if you believe in the cause of those that are exercising that right of peaceful assembly - like a protest from environmentalists for example? :lol:

Nice attempt to belittle and insult my opinion with a poorly thought out comparison. Since I have a specific type of protest I disagree with, you should also give a specific example of where an environmentalist protests rather than just your typical generalization, and then you'd actually have a comparable argument.

I strongly support the right of free speech and the right to peacefully assemble. But I do support restricting WHERE you can assemb