In other news, water is wet, the sun is hot, and salt tastes salty.

I agree that Fox News is not so much a 'news network' as it is an 'infotainment' house - one that is predominated by a conservative point of view. But it has to be said (very loudly) that CNN, the NY Times, PBS, and MSNBC are 'infotainment' houses that are predominated by a liberal point of view. And (quite frankly) people have no right to complain about Fox News because all they are doing is following the template that was created years before they started broadcasting. CNN, TNN and others established the 'infotainment' standard before FOX showed up.

So for White House flacks to say that Fox News "isn't" a news outlet, but that CNN/MSNBC/NYT/AP/USA Today (et al) ARE news outlets smacks of a rather dystopian double standard. Basically Axelrod & the other white house cronies are just mad because Fox is the only news channel that is fact checking their bull$#!+ - and they don't like it. They're skating on some pretty thin ice. This is Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia or Baghdad "Bob" style attempted media control and pretty creepy that they are being so open about it.

Spoken like a daily watcher of the Glen Beck program... well done WP... Even hit all the high 'commie' socialist highpoints... Well done indeed.

I'm unimpressed when responses fail to deal with substance. Level up your debate profession. Facts are facts. Fox News is conservative infotainment. ABC/CBS/MSNBC/CNN/AP/PBS/NYT/AP/USA Today are liberal infotainment. For the white house to 'declare war' on a news outlet just because they disagree with their positions is pretty lame. But that's the Obama WH all over. They're professional media manipulators. Most media outlets are politically sympathetic, so it doesn't take much. I'm glad there is at least one channel out there fighting the good fight and actually doing some real journalism as opposed to just being a megaphone for White House talking points.

I was glad in the Bush years there were so many news agencies who were so willing to call Bush out on his baloney. It is sad to see these people become so willing to just bend over for Obama & his crap. Quite pathetic, actually. The wholesale abandonment of journalism by the news media in favor of blanket, unquestioning fanboi propping of Obama is one of the greatest betrayals of public trust in a long time.

Pennypacker, allow me to introduce you to Bill Moyers.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Bill-Moyers-Journal-The-Healthcare-Lobby

Here's Bill Moyers, commenting on the manipulation of the health-care debate by lobbyists.

Bill Moyers appears on PBS. Yet here he is criticizing democrats!?!? But, but, but... he's supposed to be part of the vast neolib conspiracy!

Seriously, Murdock "declared war" on this administration long ago. Refusing to acknowledge that would be the height of stupidity. And for all my issues with Obama, he's not stupid...that would be our previous administration.

So i'm clear on your position WP... you can reference shows like O'Reilly's or Beck's or even 'Red Eye' and with a straight face refer to them and what they do as 'the good fight'?

You talk about facts. What a joke... neither of your posts consists of a single point that isn't your clearly skewed opinion.

Pennypacker, allow me to introduce you to Bill Moyers.

For every vid of Moyers espousing a semi-conservative position, there are 50 of him espousing a fully liberal position. I can find liberals on FOX news that criticized Bush, Republicans, and conservatives but the vast majority of the programming on Fox is still biased to the right. PBS (et al) are biased to the left. Finding the occasional token video that swims against the prevailing tone does mean that the overall position of the organization is not slanted.

Seriously, Murdock "declared war" on this administration long ago.

And CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, NYT, AP, USA Today (et al) 'declared war' on Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Bush2 decades ago. And they signed non-agression pacts with provisions for free propoganda services to Carter, Clinton & Obama. So? "News" has been biased to the left for a long time. I for one applaud the presence of at least one outfit that provides desperately needed counter-balance. They're all still cesspools. But combine FOX's conservative slant with super-high ratings & everyone else's liberal slant with low ratings... Between the two some modicum of sanity can be found by fishing in the middle.

you can reference shows like O'Reilly's or Beck's or even 'Red Eye' and with a straight face refer to them and what they do as 'the good fight'?

Yes - because without them all that would exist in the news media would be fanservice. The news media has embarressed itself for over a year with how shameless and desperate they are in thier bias for Obama. In such an environment, this country NEEDS people like Beck, Limbaugh, FOX, and anyone else who can provide the opposing point of view. You don't have to agree with them. But the existance of an adversarial news media in opposition to government is a CRITICAL component of democracy. Quite frankly, you people should be ashamed of yourselves for wishing otherwise. You got it right during the Bush years. "What happened? Your balls drop off? Hmmm?" (Dark Knight quote)

Your logical thought process (and your fingers) should look at the list of networks you punch-out (NN, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, NYT, AP, US) and some kind of conspiracy 'flag' should be thrown up. You mean there are no 'real' news network, and EVERYone is biased ?

Reality has a well-established liberal bias....I think that's a much more rational explanation.

Right just checking.

So your completely conceeding you have no facts what so ever and are just restating your opinion. Thats fine, except when you dismiss anyone elses point of view as being unsubstatiated and express your OBVIOUS opinions as though they were facts based on nothing more than your saying they are facts becasuse you REALLY want them to be.

It's just hard to take seriously when like many of your other argument lately, your more or less saying the 'left wing media' is bad... so the right wing media has every right ot be just as bad. And because they are so bad the other way somehow we'll end up ok in the middle?

I'm really not even going to argue that point... good luck with that WP

liberal media conspiracy! the most effective phrase you can utter to cause people to stop taking you seriously.

i'll give you msnbc, and yes this revelation about fox is like discovering its no fun to fuck a box of nails. but the rest are essentially out for themselves, or rather their parent companies.

when the facts and news don't lean right, it doesn't mean they lean left.

the incessant need to play this bogus victim card proves to anyone you share it with that you've been successfully brainwashed.

To sum up: if you stand on the absolute RIGHT side of a room, everyone else is on the LEFT.

To Pennypacker -

uh. fox "news" literally isn't a news station.
It's a cable channel that puts " news " in the title. (to give itself some sense of authority or credibility or whatever they're goin' for)

If they were a legitimate publicly broadcast news network they would require a license from the FCC.
(but then they wouldn't be on the air due to the obvious propoganda, lack of accurately reported facts and all their other heavily finable offenses)

Murdoch set up the fox "news" channel that way so him and his "cronies" can say whatever they want without being accountable to the FCC and the public. (or you know, truth, honesty, modesty, sanity. you pick.)


= ]

p.s. - Hopefully one day we'll all figure out it's not about taking sides but demanding honesty, from everyone.

You mean there are no 'real' news network, and EVERYone is biased ?

Yes - to the right or left - every 'news' outlet is biased in (A) what it chooses to make news or (B) how it serves up what it chooses to present. Glad you picked up on that.

So your completely conceeding you have no facts what so ever and are just restating your opinion.

No - that is your personal interpretation. I have presented nothing BUT facts. You simply refuse to accept them. That is your problem, not mine. The fact that the mainstream news outlets are liberally biased is well established and documented. I doubt the presentation of the case will matter, but here is a tiny smattering of a far larger world.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2008/Journalists%20topline.pdf
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1269

your more or less saying the 'left wing media' is bad... so the right wing media has every right ot be just as bad.

No - I am saying that ALL the 'news media' (so called) are biased and have to be approached with suspicion and skepticism. I am a skeptic of both sides. I listen to both, and make my own evaluations. I am wary of any person or entity (esp government) that advocates only listening to ONE side of the story. I really thought liberals claimed they were open minded and progressive. What then is the objection to a robust national discourse that includes both the right-wing and left? Explain to me why one side of the debate 'must' be silenced and shut down. What part of liberalism embraced the abolition of the 1st ammendment when the news outlet espouses a differing opinion? When did political suppression becine a guiding principle of the left wing? When did democrats become the party that spits on diversity and freedom?

If they were a legitimate publicly broadcast news network they would require a license from the FCC.

Are you saying that Fox News is somehow under a different set of rules than CNN, ABC, MSNBC, CBS, and so forth? This is a new and fascinating claim to me and I must confess I am not aware of the specific legal and proceedural minutae you are doubtless referencing. Please elaborate and provide citations.

The real bias is corporate. There are some clear standouts: MSNBC and FOX NEWS. Everyone else is clearly influenced by their corporate masters.

If you believe in some liberal media conspiracy, that means you are not sane. Period. Look at the parent companies. Dominated by liberals? Not usually.

edit: Oh, look, a questionable report based on paper-thin methodology, supported by a think-tank designed to find liberal bias in the media (big surprise that they found it!), contradicted by a poll that shows the majority of journalists are moderates. Master debater spotted.

@ WP - "becine" isn't a word. Neither is "ammendment". Facts.

The problem with Neo-Conservative ideology is that everyone who doesn't think like them is biased toward their opponents. Again, their axiom is: if you're aren't with me, then you're against me. So, of course, EVERY other news outlet in the world is going to be biased, belonging to the "liberal media", whether they actually are (MSNBC) or aren't (Reuters, AP). It's a very delusional and deliberately persecuted way of thinking. Kind of like that kid who got picked on in elementary school, turned bitter and resentful towards everyone, but never matured enough to realize that everyone got picked on in elementary school, at one time or another.

No PennyPacker, I'm saying that the FCC doesn't regulate cable channels ( fox cnn msnbc), they do, however, regulate public airwaves and any major news networks that use them. i.e. cbs abc nbc

If Fox "News" Channel wanted to report actual news they'd be directly involved with local stations.

Tho not surprisingly, Fox News Channel and 20th Century Fox (the sister company which controls all those local stations which fall under FCC regulation) are two seperate entities.
Murdoch and Turner(CNN) and Rogers(MSNBC) set up their "news" networks this way so they could have color commentary and opinion hosts because that drives ratings.

It doesn't earn Pulitzer awards tho..

Nonetheless, to say because CNN and MSNBC aren't true journalist networks either - and then somehow lump in everyother news outlet =/ - that it's okay for Fox News to straight up LIE, doctor pictures, and rally the neo con fringe into such a frenzy that they kill police officers and ob/gyns is a terrible argument.


Cnn sucks. They only talk about twitter now. Not the scrolling stories at the bottom of the screen.

Msnbc sucks. They don't cover Obama's or Dodd's or Frank's faults or inconsistencies.


Fox "News" is the worst. They lie, cheat, purposely exaggerate, shout down their interviewees, endorse violence, war, racism, bigotry and outright hatred of anything not stamped 'Fox Approved'. They then attempt to call themselves fair and balanced.. and try to sue you if you say otherwise.


Now I know all that text was pointless because it doesn't test your faith in your beloved bizarro world view. But if you consider yourself an objective viewer/citizen you'd realize that not only is Fox "News" extremely bias in it's "reporting" it's hurtful to the greater public interest of unity and honesty.

So, why not eliminate the biases of American media by watching a news outlet that isn't based in America? Try the BBC... or does that still have too much of a "liberal" bias for you, WP?

Suggesting that the veracity of claims/statistics/statements should be dismissed outright simply because you perceive the network to be biased one way or another is a pretty poor way to get any facts at all.

What bothers me most about Fox is not that they lie to me, but how bad they are at it. We're so stupid in this country that they don't even need to be subtle in their manipulations. This goes for Olbermann, too.

Maddow clearly leans far to the left but I don't think she twists the truth much as a result of it. She focuses on stories about the right fucking up, yes, but they're still factual. She has taken shots at the Obama administration, too. I don't consider her news, though. More like investigative journalism.

Ultimately you shouldn't watch any of the major news outlets. Bias aside, they've shown themselves to be insanely incompetent.

>> ^HaricotVert:
Suggesting that the veracity of claims/statistics/statements should be dismissed outright simply because you perceive the network to be biased one way or another is a pretty poor way to get any facts at all.


Welcome to the internet, the revolution won't be televised.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA
-6664.aspx
http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2008/Journalists%20topline.pdf
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1269

The first link is about a study that counts references to liberal vs conservative policy groups and think tanks in news stories between '95 and '05. It counts the NAACP as a liberal policy group. I don't think reporting on the NAACP indicates a liberal bias. The study removes context from all these references, so it really proves nothing. Fox News mentions ACORN every 7 seconds: does that mean they have a liberal slant?

The second link says nothing about bias. People can have a personal political opinion while working in an objective manner, such as judges.

The third link is a results grid for a large survey of journalists, and again none of those results show bias. I don't think a survey could even provide direct evidence of a bias.

The last link actually says that the majority of journalists are moderates--not that their political view would have proved bias anyway.

Maybe you don't understand what bias is, or what the complaints about Fox News are.

FOX is doing the job that the 'state-run' mainstream media is supposed to do: question authority. That liberals end up looking like fools as a result is because their insolvent and unworkable schemes are foolish.

The mainstream media losers are dying both in readership and viewership...and they can't figure out why! "Golly gosh! What are we doing WRONG?!" For starters, you could act like journalists instead of shilling for the taxocrats, but that's not gonna to happen and really, it's for the best, puts the WIN in Darwin.

If reality had a liberal bias it wouldn't need so many Obamagandists to make theft, class envy and monstrous federal tyranny seem appealing.

FOX can have any viewpoint it likes, but it can't lie about the facts. No one can. And the facts do not support the workability or legitimacy of obamacare.

>> ^quantumushroom:
FOX is doing the job that the 'state-run' mainstream media is supposed to do: question authority.

Yeah, I remember how they did this all the time when Bush was president.

it just sounds good to hear it on the tv

>> ^quantumushroom:
FOX is doing the job that the 'state-run' mainstream media is supposed to do: question authority. (1) The mainstream media losers are dying both in readership and viewership...and they can't figure out why! (2) If reality had a liberal bias it wouldn't need so many Obamagandists to make theft, class envy and monstrous federal tyranny seem appealing. (3) FOX can have any viewpoint it likes, but it can't lie about the facts. No one can. (4) And the facts do not support the workability or legitimacy of obamacare. (5)

1. State run media? Seriously, proof or stfu, you paranoid mental case.
2. I heard they invented this thing called an "Internet." I'm surprised I have to school you under the circumstances.
3. If the media loves Obama and his health care proposal so much, why do they insist on incessantly spreading stories opposing the idea? Why don't they just expose the bankruptcy of the opposition's bare ideological obstructions? Why don't they just tell us why we need it? I have an answer for you - you're delusional, and the media doesn't love Obama or his health care proposal. The PEOPLE love Obama and his health care proposal, and therefore the media has to report on it if it is to remain viable in the free market.
4. FNC cannot have any viewpoint it likes, it must have the viewpoint of the hard right. Plus, yes they can and have lied about facts. Plus, they can simply ignore the inconvenient facts, so what does it matter anyway?
5. If facts do not support the legitimacy of the current health care ideas, then please explain to us how it is that many nations around the world operate with far more aggressive policies while providing better quality health care to their people. That's a fact. And guess what? It suggests we're not doing enough.

You can't be taken seriously when all you do is point a finger and show no evidence of your batshit claims.

^PWNED!! = þ

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
CNN, TNN and others established the 'infotainment' standard

The Nashville Network? You mean the channel that used to only play like old episodes of HeeHaw and, oddly, Star Trek: TNG?

The mental gymnastics one must go through in order to think FOX isn't an arm of the GOP is beyond reason.

Lodurr

All 4 links clearly and plainly show a liberal/democrat bias in the news media. It is what it is. I'd love to see all bias (left or right) vanish but it is a free society and as such it is more important to have freedom of speech - warts and all. Cable news is awful. Affiliate news is better. Newspapers are liberal bastions. Radio is owned by the right.

I remember how they did this all the time when Bush was president.

FOX didn't need to because every other news agency was showing all the Bush stupidity. They gave up on that critical role once the guy they liked got the gig. The only TV news outlet filling this role now is FOX. I'd rather have a crappy news channel hitting on his faults than no one at all. Clearly NBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, AP, et al are very biased in favor of Obama. They want him to do well, and prop him up when he makes mistakes. Like when during the Clinton years they sat on the Lewinsky story for weeks until a plucky guy that tilted right broke the story. The media gave up on journalistic integrity due to bias long before FOX. But I'd rather have a free news media full of bias on both sides than just one biased side.

The PEOPLE love Obama and his health care proposal, and therefore the media has to report on it if it is to remain viable in the free market

Uh - no - they don't. That is you projecting YOUR bias. The majority of Americans are against both Obama and his reforms.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

The Nashville Network?

Haw haw. No - of course I mean Turner News Network before it went belly up.