Bailout, Fox-style

[simone]

Originally Posted by Symbiote

To summarise: "Fox news bad"

Not always bad. Sometimes FauxNews accidentally tells the truth.

[Steeeeve]

Originally Posted by foundit66

Actually, I do talk about it when I actually see the studies...
I saw one of those studies. It was paid for by a right-wing organization.

And I have seen plenty of other REAL studies which show Fox News as being VERY biased.
The Most Biased Name in News

Please don't tell me you think FAIR.org is a real study that is unbiased? That is sad. First off, that is an article and not a study. Second, real studies have shown different.

One was done by the CMPA which is known for being unbiased and the other was from the Pew Research Center which has been accused of having a leftist biased prior to this study.

The truth is Steeeeve that an accused bias in another media does not mean that Fox News isn't biased...
And I can't help but think your logic is thoroughly lacking.
There is no defense in the absurd pretense that you are ending an interview for "breaking news", and then have that breaking news be essentially an ad for a shark documentary...
That isn't "breaking news".

That is actually the worst example of "biased" I've heard. Furthermore, you never debunk nor mention the ACTUAL studies done showing they are less biased. I don't even doubt Fox News is biased...I just think it is silly you don't give them credit for being better than the others when clearly they are.

It's funny to watch what happened after the release of the Korean hostages.
Within a couple minutes, Fox News starts making unbased accusations about "what did the U.S. give up" in order to rescue the hostages...

That isn't a fair question? Get real.

I don't expect you to actually look at facts but for the others such as symbiote they can see that while Fox News may be biased they are significantly better than MSNBC, CBS, CNN, etc. REAL studies prove this

[T.Q]

Here's a thought:

Don't get your news from a "news" channel. You can't fill 24 hours a day with news, so they try to create news to fill the airtime.

[foundit66]

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Please don't tell me you think FAIR.org is a real study that is unbiased? That is sad. First off, that is an article and not a study. Second, real studies have shown different.

So claimeth you...
It documented the reasons why it is seen as biased.
I have yet to see any "study" from you...
Although, I guess you're going to now drop some specifics...

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

One was done by the CMPA which is known for being unbiased and the other was from the Pew Research Center which has been accused of having a leftist biased prior to this study.

I have come to recognize that when people try to sneak in assumptions with grandiose claims like "known for being unbiased", that often means there is something more to the issue...

The media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has challenged CMPA's non-partisan claim, based on the argument that much of its funding has come from conservative sources, and that its founder, Dr. S. Robert Lichter, once held a chair in mass communications at the American Enterprise Institute and was a Fox News contributor.[18][19]

Center for Media and Public Affairs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for Pew, let's see if we can find your study...
Fox News Stands Out as "Too Critical" of Obama
Fox News Stands Out as "Too Critical" of Obama: Summary of Findings - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
No. This one?
Pew Research Study: Are Fox viewers still stupid?
Pew Research Study: Are Fox viewers still stupid? The Litterbox
No. Not that one either.

Must be this one. Another ELECTION coverage story. Not about the station's news in general.
The Color of News | Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ)

Quite frankly, McCain wasn't conservative enough for a variety of conservatives I have heard from. Complaining about him just because they'd rather have Palin.
Fox News easily fits into that group...
Did you see the Fox News marking of McCain as a Democrat?
FOX News labels John McCain a Democrat | Crooks and Liars

Trying to claim their bias level based solely on election coverage is missing MOST of the picture...

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

That is actually the worst example of "biased" I've heard. Furthermore, you never debunk nor mention the ACTUAL studies done showing they are less biased.

Considering you never offered any names of these studies until now...
I guess I should have mentioned your studies BEFORE You did, right?

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

I don't even doubt Fox News is biased...I just think it is silly you don't give them credit for being better than the others when clearly they are.

I'll give them credit on election coverage.
On the general news? No.

And speaking of credit, what about credit for this?

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason
University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul...a-onthemedia27

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

That isn't a fair question? Get real.

Is that what I said? Of course not.
It's a fair question but HOW QUICKLY they turned the issue from "something good happened" to "let's continue to fear-monger with speculation about the president" was amazing.

How little time they spent on "something good happened", as opposed to spending time on "we're going to guess endlessly and interview conservative pundits on their guesses" is the point.

The funny thing is that in situations like this, FOX DOES NOT WANT to really ask who they need to ask on the issue...
How much air-time do you think they're going to give a question to the president's PR guy on the issue???

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

I don't expect you to actually look at facts ...

And you're back in character assassination mode...

[Steeeeve]

Originally Posted by foundit66

The media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has challenged CMPA's non-partisan claim, based on the argument that much of its funding has come from conservative sources, and that its founder, Dr. S. Robert Lichter, once held a chair in mass communications at the American Enterprise Institute and was a Fox News contributor.[18][19]

Center for Media and Public Affairs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The CMPA, a sub-group of George Mason University (a public Virginia University) had the same results as the Pew study. Are you going to claim they are both biased?

Get a real argument instead of attacking a reputable source.

As for Pew, let's see if we can find your study...
Fox News Stands Out as "Too Critical" of Obama
Fox News Stands Out as "Too Critical" of Obama: Summary of Findings - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
No. This one?
Pew Research Study: Are Fox viewers still stupid?
Pew Research Study: Are Fox viewers still stupid? The Litterbox
No. Not that one either.

I'm glad you pointed those out...you can't talk about Pew being too biased now which you probably will anyway.

Lets see if you can find their study. It actually is at Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) | Understanding News in the Information Age. I know you can do it!


FoxNews
Positive Obama Stories 25%
Positive McCain Stories 22%
Negative Obama Stories 40%
Negative McCain Stories 40%

MSNBC
Positive Obama Stories 73%
Positive McCain Stories 10%
Negative Obama Stories 14%
Negative McCain Stories 43%

Average
Positive Obama Stories 36%
Positive McCain Stories 14%
Negative Obama Stories 29%
Negative McCain Stories 57%

Quite frankly, McCain wasn't conservative enough for a variety of conservatives I have heard from. Complaining about him just because they'd rather have Palin.
I suspect Fox News easily fits into that group...

Now that you have been shown to be wrong you turn your argument to something different. Interesting. By the way, Pew found NBC to be the nicest to Palin.

Trying to claim their bias level based solely on election coverage is missing MOST of the picture...

You mean like trying to claim bias level based upon a news channel breaking an interview for something stupid?

I'll give them credit on election coverage.
On the general news? No.

Based upon nothing more than your own bias?

And speaking of credit, what about credit for this?

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason
University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.

In study, evidence of liberal-bias bias - Los Angeles Times

Surely you aren't quoting a study from a group you literally just said was biased earlier in your post. HAHA, that is unreal...even from you. And I believe this study is accurate just as I believe their final study is accurate about Fox News being the most unbiased.

[foundit66]

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

The CMPA, a sub-group of George Mason University (a public Virginia University) had the same results as the Pew study. Are you going to claim they are both biased?
Get a real argument instead of attacking a reputable source.

That's funny.
You argue they aren't biased, as a form of credential.
When I show they are, you complain...

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

I'm glad you pointed those out...you can't talk about Pew being too biased now which you probably will anyway.

And when you're wrong, that will have absolutely no effect on your attitude...


But regarding those polls which Pew did that made some conclusions on Fox News, you have no comment.
Now that I pointed that out, are you still going to refuse comment?

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Lets see if you can find their study. It actually is at Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) | Understanding News in the Information Age. I know you can do it!

Wow dude.
I LINKED TO THAT STUDY in the very post you responded to.
You cut and paste around me doing that, and then continue with the snide "I know you can do it"???

That's really impressive...
Not!

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Now that you have been shown to be wrong you turn your argument to something different. Interesting. By the way, Pew found NBC to be the nicest to Palin.

There is no "change" here Steeeeve.
You didn't fully represent what the "studies" actually consisted of.
I commented earlier on BIAS studies, generically.
You offer a study on election news coverage. Very specific.

I obviously couldn't comment on what you hadn't shown until you gave some specifics about what you were alluding too...

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

You mean like trying to claim bias level based upon a news channel breaking an interview for something stupid?

Dude.
You can obfuscate all you like. The POINT of the interview was obviously biased based on the very questions being asked.
When the representative was obviously kicking the reporter's butt, the reporter utilized a FALSE excuse to end the interview.

Now, I realize that some people will never admit what happened.
But in the end, I think you're going to have a harder time trying to get others to join those to stick their head in the sand and refuse to recognize what just happened...

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Based upon nothing more than your own bias?

Why did the reporter lie?

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Surely you aren't quoting a study from a group you literally just said was biased earlier in your post. HAHA, that is unreal...even from you. And I believe this study is accurate just as I believe their final study is accurate about Fox News being the most unbiased.

Biased in the favor of conservatives.
If you have a liberal giving criticism to liberals, the problem of "bias" is obviously mitigated.
When you have a conservative giving criticism to conservatives, again the problem of "bias" is mitigated.

Say you have a mother who loves her kids.
The mother is put on the stand to testify, and she says her kid could not have committed the crime. The D.A. could legitimately question whether or not her bias is a problem.
But if the same mother (who loves her kid) gets on the stand and admits that the child IS CAPABLE of committing the crime in question, do you think anybody is going to say "but she's biased" when the "bias" problem would point her in a different direction???

Surely I shouldn't have to explain that...

[Steeeeve]

Originally Posted by foundit66

That's funny.
You argue they aren't biased, as a form of credential.
When I show they are, you complain...

Yet you have showed nothing of the sort. In fact, you have said nothing about Pew.

But regarding those polls which Pew did that made some conclusions on Fox News, you have no comment.
Now that I pointed that out, are you still going to refuse comment?

Why should I answer red herrings?

You can obfuscate all you like. The POINT of the interview was obviously biased based on the very questions being asked.
When the representative was obviously kicking the reporter's butt, the reporter utilized a FALSE excuse to end the interview.

You mean when the interviewer was asking real questions? You consider that bias? A false excuse? You have proof of this? Were you at the studio or something? Could he have misspoke because it was really a commercial break or someone in his ear told him there was breaking news? Or could it be that DailyKos is making a big deal about 1 interview that made no difference and shows no proof of bias.

This is like the Palin story and the "racist republican" story...you have no proof or evidence and try to make a mountain out of nothing. The only one bias here is you and it is pathetic.

Biased in the favor of conservatives.
If you have a liberal giving criticism to liberals, the problem of "bias" is obviously mitigated.
When you have a conservative giving criticism to conservatives, again the problem of "bias" is mitigated.

What does this have to do with you calling a source biased in one sentence and using the source the next? I called you out and yet again you refuse to admit it.

Now go rage and post back.

[foundit66]

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Yet you have showed nothing of the sort.

Yes. I have.
You may not agree with the conclusion, but I have shown a clear reason to recognize bias...

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Why should I answer red herrings?

You threw out red herrings in your intro post on this thread, about how great Fox News was.
I figured I would show some responses to those claims, regarding an actual look at quality...

If you want to leave it at that, that's your perogative.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

You mean when the interviewer was asking real questions? You consider that bias?

Is this how you do that?
You simply propagandically spin the issue, labeling it something positive and ignore what happened?
The interviewer wasn't asking "real" questions.
He was MAKING ARGUMENTS.
If I remember correctly, his last "question" was the typical attack question of "here is an argument against your position. what do you think of that?"
That isn't a "real question".
The approach had a clear agenda.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

A false excuse? You have proof of this? Were you at the studio or something?

People can see the proof for themselves.
He claimed he had a "breaking news story", and then he cut to a commercial for a "shark week" promo or some similar nonsense.
That's not "breaking news"...

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Could he have misspoke because it was really a commercial break or someone in his ear told him there was breaking news?

And out parade the apologetics.
Just because you imagine scenarios that might be a better light, you think that's proof of something...

"misspeaking"? "commercial break" sounds nothing like "breaking news".
And if somebody fed him the excuse, then I guess the culpability for that excuse simply moves up the chain to somebody higher making the biased move...

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

This is like the Palin story and the "racist republican" story...you have no proof or evidence and try to make a mountain out of nothing. The only one bias here is you and it is pathetic.

Steeeeve, People will judge for themselves.
People will recognize the truth for themselves.
You may not like the conclusions others draw, but that doesn't mean squat in the big picture.
You have done nothing to refute the situation other than to propagandically spin and relabel what is obvious...

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

What does this have to do with you calling a source biased in one sentence and using the source the next? I called you out and yet again you refuse to admit it.

"refuse to admit it"???
I EXPLAINED it, so I would think that would be a clear part of "admitting" it.
Yes. We have a source with conservative bias...

And I clearly explained situations where a bias favoring ONE direction is often used despite the existence of bias, because the source's comments are actually criticizing the direction it typically favors...

I really don't understand how you don't grasp this.
But considering you cut and paste around my example, maybe you understand more than you're willing to admit.

So I'll simply repeat what you refused to address...

Say you have a mother who loves her kids.
The mother is put on the stand to testify, and she says her kid could not have committed the crime. The D.A. could legitimately question whether or not her bias is a problem.
But if the same mother (who loves her kid) gets on the stand and admits that the child IS CAPABLE of committing the crime in question, do you think anybody is going to say "but she's biased" when the "bias" problem would point her in a different direction???

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Now go rage and post back.

Meh.
In one post, you put in a character assassination comment, and then you pretend I am the one who is "raging"...
I give a study AFTER you finally give me sufficient information to find it, ...
... and then you not only refuse to admit that I found it, cutting and pasting around where I gave it ...
... but then you criticize me for not finding it BEFORE you told me information necessary to find it in the first place ...

And you think I am the one who is "raging"???

lol.
Whatever dude...

[Steeeeve]

Originally Posted by foundit66

Yes. I have.
You may not agree with the conclusion, but I have shown a clear reason to recognize bias...

Some person quoted on wikipedia told you....great reason. Oh, and that was only for one source too.

Is this how you do that?
You simply propagandically spin the issue, labeling it something positive and ignore what happened?
The interviewer wasn't asking "real" questions.

If you don't ask about legitimate concerns than what service are you doing? If anything that is more fair since you basically present both sides of a story and you see the arguments. Are you one of those people that like reporters to slobber over the thought of Obama and grant infomercials on their respective stations? At least Fox News hates everyone.

Just because you imagine scenarios that might be a better light, you think that's proof of something...

About as much proof as you have for your imagine scenario.

"refuse to admit it"???
I EXPLAINED it, so I would think that would be a clear part of "admitting" it.
Yes. We have a source with conservative bias...

And I clearly explained situations where a bias favoring ONE direction is often used despite the existence of bias, because the source's comments are actually criticizing the direction it typically favors...

I really don't understand how you don't grasp this.
But considering you cut and paste around my example, maybe you understand more than you're willing to admit.

A bias source is not credible and you use it as such...even if the story is positive against the biase this still could be biased and thus is not credible. I called you out on it...I'm guess you didn't know what the abbreviation stood for at first...and now you refuse to admit it. Normal.

In one post, you put in a character assassination comment, and then you pretend I am the one who is "raging"...
And you think I am the one who is "raging"???

lol.
Whatever dude...

rawr! Go get um'

[T.Q]

Fox news is biased, but this wasn't an example of that bias, or not a good one anyways. These are the questions that should be asked of politicians-well, tough questions anyways. These were more negative than a real news agency would ask. Tough, thought provoking questions that cut through the BS are what should be asked, and rarely are.

To me, the "reporters" end piece seemed more like they were coming up on a scheduled commercial break, and he f-ed up and said they had to cut away rather than saying they were out of time. Intentional or flub, who knows? Definitely amateurish though

[Steeeeve]

Originally Posted by T.Q

Fox news is biased, but this wasn't an example of that bias, or not a good one anyways. These are the questions that should be asked of politicians-well, tough questions anyways. These were more negative than a real news agency would ask. Tough, thought provoking questions that cut through the BS are what should be asked, and rarely are.

To me, the "reporters" end piece seemed more like they were coming up on a scheduled commercial break, and he f-ed up and said they had to cut away rather than saying they were out of time. Intentional or flub, who knows? Definitely amateurish though

I wouldn't dispute anything here. Fox News is biased to the right but to a much lesser extent than others are to the left...granted bias is bias so it is all bad. Frankly Fox News shouldn't care since their ratings are more than the others combined. And yes, Fox News hates everyone so they are always more negative.

[CUNxTime]

I just heard that the Obama admin has spent more promoting the healthcare bill than McCain spent on his candidacy. Also, Obama said that the AARP had endorsed the plan and the AARP said they did nothing of the sort....
Hmmmm, who's doing the misinformation again?

[Symbiote]

Clearly Obama's millions of dollars of advertisement and suck-up newscasts and interviews aren't sufficient. Unless the elderly listen quietly at town hall meetings, they're stifling genuine debate.

Genuine debate means not disagreeing with anything the president says.

[Steeeeve]

Originally Posted by Symbiote

Clearly Obama's millions of dollars of advertisement and suck-up newscasts and interviews aren't sufficient. Unless the elderly listen quietly at town hall meetings, they're stifling genuine debate.

Genuine debate means not disagreeing with anything the president says.

Contrast this to 1st term President Bush who never called for a fake debate..he just did it. I'm not sure that is any better but at least he didn't toy with us first...he went straight to screwing us over.

[foundit66]

Originally Posted by CUNxTime

I just heard that the Obama admin has spent more promoting the healthcare bill than McCain spent on his candidacy. Also, Obama said that the AARP had endorsed the plan and the AARP said they did nothing of the sort....
Hmmmm, who's doing the misinformation again?

Good question...

Here's an article from the Texas AARP head...
It explicitly notes the need for healthcare reform. It explicitly condemns the "myth machines" that are running rampant right now about the issue.

Also, I don't know what Obama himself has claimed.
If he just claimed that the AARP has seen the need for change, then that is very true.
If he has claimed the AARP endorsed his plan, I don't see the evidence of that yet.

So you don’t want to see any changes to health care? Well, imagine your health insurance premiums doubling over the next 10 years, the Medicare trust fund going bankrupt and the number of uninsured Texans continuing its meteoric rise. That’s what you will have without meaningful health insurance reform.

Special interests defending the status quo are employing an array of scare tactics, half-truths and outright deception in trying to convince us that the system is not in critical condition.

The reality is that -- with health care costs eating up 16% of our gross domestic product (GDP) and the rising cost of medical care taking a toll on millions already struggling in this economic crisis -- we cannot truly fix our economy until we fix health care.

As a dynamic organization of 40 million members with a long history of fighting for quality health care for all Americans -- including protecting and strengthening Medicare -- AARP has been targeted by those intent on slamming the brakes on any attempts to reform the system. We have not yet endorsed any of the bills moving through Congress but our organization is committed to making health care reform a reality. For too long, our country has settled on a health care system that costs too much, wastes too much and leaves too many without care.

Unfortunately, the myth machine is out in full force today. Rather than addressing the issues with constructive dialogue, some would rather spend their energies misleading Americans. Let’s take a few of their distortions head on.

AARP Online Community: AARPTX - My Journals & Blogs