Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 72

Thread: Why Fox News scares me

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 15 2001
    Location
    Southern California
    Age
    33
    Posts
    9,084

    Why Fox News scares me

    So, in my ritual watching of Fox to try and better understand the conservative POV, I happened upon an interesting little tidbit about the entire "illegal" wiretaps. They had a poll that was roughly worded...

    "Do you support Bush's decision to monitor conversations of suspected terrorists without a warrant?" (roughly, and I obviously added the italics)

    And the poll results were

    90% yes
    10% no

    Wow. I mean, wow. I find it absolutely astounding that, even amongst the most hardcore conservative polling samples, such as the one that would voluntarily go to foxnews.com to vote on this you'd find such a disproportionate number of "yes" votes.

    Amongst the people I associate with, I'd say the sentiment is (ever so scientifically) around 25/75 in favor of "no." Is this simply because I live in California and associate with a younger more liberal crowd? Or is the Fox poll really as off as I think it is?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 21 2005
    Location
    Chi-town
    Posts
    6,465
    Dude, Murdoch News has been out of the closet for over a year now. They bassicaly have been since they dropped 'fair and balanced'. I told you about the **** I saw. 'Proof that conservatives care more about the poor then liberals'. Anytime you watch it between midnight and 5 a.m. or so, any shred of balance they might try and keep on the scale for opposing views goes off, and its a circle jerk of conservatism.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 15 2001
    Location
    Southern California
    Age
    33
    Posts
    9,084
    I don't know, I've always found them to be more biased in their reporting than CNN, but just, those numbers, 9 to 1, astonishing.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 28 2001
    Location
    The sewer
    Posts
    22,870
    You have to realize though, FOX isn't a news channel, it's just a mouthpiece for Republican propaganda. The only people left watching it are deluded neo-cons or the curious like you, even if the numbers in their poll were reversed I'm sure they'd change them.
    "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for."
    --Thomas Jefferson



    Waterboard Monsanto!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 21 2004
    Location
    Asylum Of The Damned
    Posts
    15,885
    It could also be the people voting were giving a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of terrorists in general, and not thinking of the consequences of the whole question. This is the same thinking that got Bush voted in to begin with...get everyone scared & hyped up emotionally & they don't take the time to consider any options.
    I think the government expected civilians to be so terrified of a possible attack by now that they would, like sheep, do as they were gently coaxed into doing. That we would not be capable, anymore, of rational thought.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 15 2001
    Location
    Southern California
    Age
    33
    Posts
    9,084
    Quote Originally Posted by Corporate Avenger
    You have to realize though, FOX isn't a news channel, it's just a mouthpiece for Republican propaganda. The only people left watching it are deluded neo-cons or the curious like you, even if the numbers in their poll were reversed I'm sure they'd change them.
    I completely disagree. I think that Fox News simply presents the conservative view of politics. If you were to say that they're the mouthpiece for the Republicans, that's tantamount to saying that CNN is the moutpiece of the Democrats, and I find neither to be true. Of course I think that CNN presents a more balanced and fair view of things, but how can I be sure I'm not just saying that because I'm a liberal and its a liberal network?

    And, last I checked, more people watch Fox than CNN, and I've had no reason to doubt their integrity as a network. Like it or not, a whole lot of people agree with Fox, and to write them off as neo-cons is a stretch. Reason to doubt that they're "fair and balanced," yes.


    Like I asked, I'm just trying to figure out if that 9-1 is really accurate of any demographic, and if it is, which demographic so I can stay the hell away from it.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 15 2001
    Location
    Southern California
    Age
    33
    Posts
    9,084
    Quote Originally Posted by myst
    It could also be the people voting were giving a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of terrorists in general, and not thinking of the consequences of the whole question. This is the same thinking that got Bush voted in to begin with...get everyone scared & hyped up emotionally & they don't take the time to consider any options.
    I think the government expected civilians to be so terrified of a possible attack by now that they would, like sheep, do as they were gently coaxed into doing. That we would not be capable, anymore, of rational thought.
    That seems to be the explanation for so much of what's been done under the BA. But 9-1? I haven't seen margins like that for anything but the MOST clear-cut things, and as I see it, this executive decision is anything but.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 21 2004
    Location
    Asylum Of The Damned
    Posts
    15,885
    Quote Originally Posted by ResidentRice
    That seems to be the explanation for so much of what's been done under the BA. But 9-1? I haven't seen margins like that for anything but the MOST clear-cut things, and as I see it, this executive decision is anything but.
    Now factor in the people who call in to vote...many of those who would vote no probably though..."ah, f*** it", were to angry to bother, or were too busy trying to find a way to kick the government in the ass. Maybe only 20 people called in, and they all work for the security department. Did you bother to call? If I had, it would only be because I did nothing but sit watching Fox all day, too bored to shoot myself.

    A phone survey isn't anything comparable to a real dissection of society. Just give your head a shake & thank God you have the intelligence to question the information being spoon fed to the public.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 28 2001
    Location
    The sewer
    Posts
    22,870
    Quote Originally Posted by ResidentRice
    I completely disagree. I think that Fox News simply presents the conservative view of politics. If you were to say that they're the mouthpiece for the Republicans, that's tantamount to saying that CNN is the moutpiece of the Democrats, and I find neither to be true. Of course I think that CNN presents a more balanced and fair view of things, but how can I be sure I'm not just saying that because I'm a liberal and its a liberal network?

    They don't report "news" as we know it, they editorialize in an always beneficial to the GOP way. News isn't supposed to be biased one way or the other, when it does it ceases to be news and becomes propaganda.

    Second. FOX has nothing to do with CNN, just because FOX is the mouthpiece for the GOP doesn't automaticaly make CNN the mouthpiece for the DNC, in fact, CNN slants to the right and has been an overt supporter of Bush and his policies especially the Iraq war. Here's an example:
    With 35 right-leaning guests and 16 from the left (69 percent vs. 31 percent), the right had a better than 2 to 1 advantage. Right-wing syndicated talk show host Laura Ingraham appeared seven times, more frequently than any other guest; the second-most prominent guest (6 appearances) was conservative National Review editor Rich Lowry. (The third most frequent guest was Time’s Karen Tumulty, with five appearances.)

    Reliable Sources' conservative guests not only appeared more often than their progressive counterparts, they tended to be more staunchly ideological; many are avowed activists and campaigners for the conservative movement, like talkshow host Rush Limbaugh or Jay Nordlinger and Byron York of the National Review.

    New York Times columnist Frank Rich and internet blogger Joshua Micah Marshall of www.talkingpointsmemo.com were the most frequent left-of-center guests with three spots each. No other left-leaning guest appeared more than once in the year studied. Reliable Sources drew no guests from National Review's progressive counterparts--magazines like In These Times, The Progressive or The Nation.
    http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1132

    I don't know where people get this idea that CNN is biased towrds the left or the leftist version of FOX since the facts show otherwise.


    And, last I checked, more people watch Fox than CNN, and I've had no reason to doubt their integrity as a network.
    Sorry, but I doubt the integrity of any network who blatently spews propaganda and has hired a bunch of venomous lunatics like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.

    Like it or not, a whole lot of people agree with Fox, and to write them off as neo-cons is a stretch. Reason to doubt that they're "fair and balanced," yes.
    So? Lots of people probably read Der Sturmer in it's time.

    Neo-cons a stretch? are you implying that they are conservatives? To call them "conservative" would be the real stretch. everybody they have on their network is insanely supportive of Bush's agenda, big government, curtailment of liberties, corporatism, and on and on.

    One of their favorite guests is the grandaddy of neo-conservatism himself, William Kristol from the Weekly Standard.


    Like I asked, I'm just trying to figure out if that 9-1 is really accurate of any demographic, and if it is, which demographic so I can stay the hell away from it.

    The clues are everywhere..
    "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for."
    --Thomas Jefferson



    Waterboard Monsanto!

  10. #10
    hadit is offline Super Moderator Super Mod
    Join Date
    Nov 24 2004
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    33,338
    Quote Originally Posted by ResidentRice
    I completely disagree. I think that Fox News simply presents the conservative view of politics. If you were to say that they're the mouthpiece for the Republicans, that's tantamount to saying that CNN is the moutpiece of the Democrats, and I find neither to be true. Of course I think that CNN presents a more balanced and fair view of things, but how can I be sure I'm not just saying that because I'm a liberal and its a liberal network?

    And, last I checked, more people watch Fox than CNN, and I've had no reason to doubt their integrity as a network. Like it or not, a whole lot of people agree with Fox, and to write them off as neo-cons is a stretch. Reason to doubt that they're "fair and balanced," yes.


    Like I asked, I'm just trying to figure out if that 9-1 is really accurate of any demographic, and if it is, which demographic so I can stay the hell away from it.
    Look at the wording of the question. Nowhere does it contain the word "illegal". You can get any poll response you want if you word the questions the right way. An extreme and nonsensical example would be CBS doing a poll question like this. "Would you prefer to have Hillary Clinton as president or be forced to watch Karl Rove belly dance in his underwear?" They could then tout the results as "99% of Americans would support Hillary for president". This question shows that a lot of people approve of the president taking this step to stop terrorists, even if it means overstepping the bounds. Remember, they're used to presidents finding ways to get around legal limits. "That all depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 28 2001
    Location
    The sewer
    Posts
    22,870
    Anybody who supports this doesn't deserve the freedom many died to give them.

    'Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
    --Benjamin Franklin
    "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for."
    --Thomas Jefferson



    Waterboard Monsanto!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 15 2001
    Location
    Southern California
    Age
    33
    Posts
    9,084
    CA, you know I love you, but I'm too much of a "grey" person to think that what CNN is giving us is "news" and what Fox is giving us is "propaganda." Its all in the interpretation, I just happen to interpret it the same way you do. Though, the one thing I was mistaken in my post that you caught me on is that they truly do editorialize way, way too much to be truly journalistic. You're very right on that.

    Hadit, that was my point I was trying to make, and did a horrible job of making, I guess. The point was that the question was worded in a way that (I thought) it would be a coin-flip for reasonable people, whether national security was worth overstepping the bounds. How many times have you seen a poll, any poll, going 9-1? I mean, that's literally regardless of the wording of the question crazy. Even in your example of Hillary vs. Rove in whitey-tighties I'd think more than 10% would pick Karl pole-dancing.

    I guess I was just pointing out the reason why I personally distrust Fox News. If a channel is catering to demographics like that, they're obviously not for me, which they prove time and time again.

  13. #13
    hadit is offline Super Moderator Super Mod
    Join Date
    Nov 24 2004
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    33,338
    Quote Originally Posted by ResidentRice
    CA, you know I love you, but I'm too much of a "grey" person to think that what CNN is giving us is "news" and what Fox is giving us is "propaganda." Its all in the interpretation, I just happen to interpret it the same way you do. Though, the one thing I was mistaken in my post that you caught me on is that they truly do editorialize way, way too much to be truly journalistic. You're very right on that.

    Hadit, that was my point I was trying to make, and did a horrible job of making, I guess. The point was that the question was worded in a way that (I thought) it would be a coin-flip for reasonable people, whether national security was worth overstepping the bounds. How many times have you seen a poll, any poll, going 9-1? I mean, that's literally regardless of the wording of the question crazy. Even in your example of Hillary vs. Rove in whitey-tighties I'd think more than 10% would pick Karl pole-dancing.

    I guess I was just pointing out the reason why I personally distrust Fox News. If a channel is catering to demographics like that, they're obviously not for me, which they prove time and time again.
    90% agreement on anything in today's political climate is hard to believe. I don't trust polls very much at all. Just look at the last 2 presidential races and see how far off they were.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 28 2001
    Location
    The sewer
    Posts
    22,870
    Quote Originally Posted by ResidentRice
    CA, you know I love you, but I'm too much of a "grey" person to think that what CNN is giving us is "news" and what Fox is giving us is "propaganda." Its all in the interpretation, I just happen to interpret it the same way you do. Though, the one thing I was mistaken in my post that you caught me on is that they truly do editorialize way, way too much to be truly journalistic. You're very right on that.

    For the record I don't consider CNN to be very newsworthy either, I think the BBC would be a better example but we don't get that here and our UK friends withhold posting interesting news from over there for some reason.
    "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for."
    --Thomas Jefferson



    Waterboard Monsanto!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 15 2001
    Location
    Southern California
    Age
    33
    Posts
    9,084
    I think you undestand my point. As easily as you can say that Fox speaks for the GOP, a con, neo- or paleo- you pick the prefix, could say that CNN is the mouthpiece for the Dems.

    Strange, am I the last person on this site who likes CNN for their news? I'd probably read BBC more if their website didn't bug me to no end. I guess they American-proofed it so colonial idiots like me can't find the good stuff.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 21 2004
    Location
    Asylum Of The Damned
    Posts
    15,885
    Not that it will matter to you, but I use CNN because it's quick and even if I don't like the protrayal, I know fast what at least is going on & I can glean more elsewhere if I choose.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 15 2001
    Location
    Southern California
    Age
    33
    Posts
    9,084
    OK, I'm not the only one.

    For in-depth stuff, I'll admit I turn to the LA Times and nowhere else really.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 21 2005
    Location
    Secaucus, New Jersey
    Posts
    26
    I love Fox News dont touch my favorite channel

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 06 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,681
    RRposted:
    And, last I checked, more people watch Fox than CNN, and I've had no reason to doubt their integrity as a network. Like it or not, a whole lot of people agree with Fox, and to write them off as neo-cons is a stretch. Reason to doubt that they're "fair and balanced," yes.
    I think it’s a good idea to watch both Fox and CNN if one watches cable news.

    Of course, more people in America are watching Fox because of DEMAND (as RR points out). Now, what creates that DEMAND is debatable and probably will never be truly identified.

    I do not believe any news source can be absolutely “fair and balanced” because humans, who operate Fox (and CNN, etc.), certainly have opinions, and because they are also seek to meet DEMAND (unless they wish to lose $$ and answer to angry shareholders).

  20. #20
    boedicca's Avatar
    boedicca is offline Uppity Water Nymph Premium Member
    Join Date
    Apr 17 2005
    Location
    The Land of Funk
    Posts
    15,206
    Quote Originally Posted by ResidentRice

    "Do you support Bush's decision to monitor conversations of suspected terrorists without a warrant?" (roughly, and I obviously added the italics)

    And the poll results were

    90% yes
    10% no

    This isn't surprising in the least. The results reflect that FNC has attracted an audience that understands Separation of Powers, The Constitution, and is disgusted by Activist Courts and the Imperial Senate.

    Given the amount of coverage FNC has given to explaining the nature of the Executive Order, the briefings to Congress, and the targets of the wiretaps, the vast majority of reasonable people realize that the wiretaps are prudent intelligence maneuvres to identify the enemy in a time of war.

    In this lightning moment when you walk the earth, your first duty, by enlarging your ego, is to live through the endless march, both visible and invisible, of your own being.

    The Return of One's Pet Batfink!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •