The FOX "News" spin thread!

[Torurot]

I just did a quick search of the "Fishbox" titles for the word "FOX".  Only one hit, and nothing to do with the TV version. Jai Dee, recently mentioned that "esteemed" channel of spin, and it's about time "we" supporters & detractors gave it a spin in it's own thread, so to start it off from one of my favourite "channels":

Bring It On!
Fox News vs. Team Obama
http://counterpunch.org/kent10232009.html
By NORM KENT Weekend Edition October 23-25, 2009

This past week the Obama Administration said that it does not view the Fox News Network as a credible news organization because it has an agenda and a perspective inconsistent with neutrality.

As if to prove the point for them, Fox€™s terror dogs immediately went on the attack, led by Karl Rove, asserting that the President is creating a Nixon-like €˜Enemies List.€™ Talk about stretching the truth. The €˜enemies list€™ created by 1970€™s-era President Richard Nixon was a master list, created by the President, to engage in secretive and illegal surveillance on prominent citizens who disparaged or disagreed with the government. Rahm Emanuel, on the other hand, stated rather routinely that Fox News ought to be called out for its transparent lack of neutrality while presenting news to the American people. Quite a difference.

Bill O€™Reilly, Tucker Carlson, Glenn Beck, Greta Van Sostern, and then Bill Hemmer, also entered the fray for Fox News, championing their individual liberties, http://kentvent.blogspot.com/# while remarking that Obama€™s team was trying to silence a free press; that they were being €˜bullied.€™ So the most powerful network on television struts out its stars to reach their massive audiences, and comes to the table shrieking that their rights are being infringed, their freedoms shattered, their lives ruined. Boo hoo! Cry me a river. Who are they kidding? This is hardly a network being silenced.

Fox is a media outlet. It relished every moment of the attack, one long overdue. Frankly, it is about time that liberals fought back, firmly and angrily. What the Obama administration showed is why they got to the White House. They do not run. They stand their ground. They do not apologize for who they are. And they will not stand idly by as Foxnuts seize misrepresentative quotes and misleading sound bites to falsely demonize decent Obama appointees as extremists and radicals.

For years, we have heard all the nasty things about the liberal media. We have listened as right wing commentators took over the AM radio stations beating and bashing those humane liberals who have fought for a 21st century society which embraces diversity. We have been demonized for supporting everything from the right of handicapped to have access to public facilities to allowing for salmon to swim upstream. And guess what, gays are getting married and society is not collapsing. People smoke marijuana medicinally and children are still going to school We liberals are right about wrong foreign wars, corporate exploitation of citizens and making health care affordable and accessible. But our voices have not been loud enough. It is about time that changed. Many of us are strong on crime. We believe Rush Limbaugh should have gone to jail for drug trafficking years ago. And maybe Dick Cheney should not be allowed to own handguns or rifles.

Accordingly, the Obama Administration€™s David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, and Anita Dunn should not be censored for firing back, they should be celebrated. Any administration represents a point of view, sets an agenda, and argues its cause. If the Fox News Network opposes it, as they clearly do, then so be it. They have a right to write too. But the administration has no duty to pander to its activist agenda. Fox may brag it is fair and balanced, but there are many, this writer included, that believe their presentations are tilted and unbalanced, leaning to the rabid right and the wrongfully righteous.

As a network, it makes for delightfully entertaining programming. They are the best at what they do. Fox is ingenious at getting under the liberals€™ skin, but it has not done much but get them ratings. The Democrats€™ control the House, the Senate, and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It is now not only the obligation of Fox but its duty to call the administration to task for its achievements and appointments, its policies and its practices. That they do so on an entertaining and creative venue like Fox News simply requires Team Obama to rise up to the challenge with good governance and a capable administration. Achieve that goal and it is the best answer that will ever be written. But every news entity has a right to question authority, and challenge those in power. So too may those in power evaluate whether the critiques are credible and the criticisms just.

A feud between the Obama Administration and Fox is not to be demeaned and denigrated. It ought to be publicized and promoted. Each may become better voices at effectively getting their message out, and both can prosper from the discussion. Fox will get more viewers, and Obama may get to refine, streamline, and more effectively present their voice. Neither should be silent or intimidated. Neither has a right to be above criticism or review. Not as long as we live in a free society.

Fox just has to own up to what columnist John Batchelor wrote this week: they may present the news, but they are in show business. So is every campaigner that gets elected to office today with its slick brochures and television marketing. Let€™s be real. The most articulate conservative commentators only land in the tv studio after getting prepped in a dressing room for hair and makeup.

We are all mad men and we only get madder if we deny that essential truth. The only significance of the Obama War on Fox is that Fox got to War on Obama. It made for a good show. And that is all that counts in the end, except maybe if you really care that Americans are still dying in a foreign war that has lasted longer than all the combined years of World War I and II. You see, Fox you are no Walter Cronkite. And that€™s the way it really is.

Norm Kent, a criminal defense attorney in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, publishes The Broward Law Blog, www.browardlawblog.com

[PigDogg]

(Torurot @ Oct. 23 2009,19:13) They have a right to write too. But the administration has no duty to pander to its activist agenda. Fox may brag it is fair and balanced, but there are many, this writer included, that believe their presentations are tilted and unbalanced, leaning to the rabid right and the wrongfully righteous.

 

Lots of "real" Amerikans who hate niggers and ladyboy worshipping cocksuckers love that network though.  They don't seem to realize that the power elite robs them much more than wetbacks or welfare cheats.

Never get to see the biggest loudmouts like Rush over here in Thailand, just the more or less regular Fox newscasters.

I hate that smug Cavuto douchebag.    

[Onebadindan]

All news channels and Radio is very bias. thats why I listen to

http://npr.org/

no corprate sponsors all real news all the time. see for yourself..

as they say

Truth shall set you free.

[alan1chef]

Think there is no such thing as the "liberal media"? Think again. It exists and has for decades. So now that the conservatives have a media outlet that thinks a little in their direction, the liberal world is crying and whining. I'm not surprised. It's always been what they do best.



Associated Press, MSNBC and CNBC Seen as Having Liberal Bias (Rasmussen survey from 2007)

In the final poll of a series measuring perceptions of media bias, the Associated Press, local television stations, MSNBC , and CNBC are all perceived as tilting to the left when reporting the news.

Earlier releases showed that Americans tend to believe the major broadcast networks, CNN and NPR have a liberal bias. Fox News is seen as having a bias in the other direction. In print, the New York Times, Washington Post, and local newspapers were also seen as having a liberal bias.

Americans are evenly divided as to whether or not the €œFairness Doctrine fairness doctrine: see equal-time rule. € should be restored. That regulation required broadcast outlets to present alternative viewpoints. Thirty-four percent (34%) of Americans want the Fairness Doctrine expanded and applied to web sites as well as broadcast outlets.

Interest in the Fairness Doctrine was revived on Capitol Hill after public opinion overwhelmed the preferences of the Senate on the immigration immigration, entrance of a person (an alien) into a new country for the purpose of establishing permanent residence. Motives for immigration, like those for migration generally, are often economic, although religious or political factors may be very important.  debate. Some legislators advocating €œcomprehensive€ reform blamed talk radio for the defeat of their proposal.

The current survey finds that 30% of American adults believe the Associated Press has a liberal bias and only 12% believe it leans the other way. Local television news is viewed as having a liberal bias by 30% and a conservative bias by 17%. MSNBC is seen as being a bit more to the left€”33% say it has a liberal bias and 13% say the opposite. For CNBC, 29% say it has a liberal bias and 14% say a conservative bias.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) say local television stations deliver news without bias while 36% say the same for the Associated Press.

This national telephone survey of 953 Adults was conducted by Rasmussen Reports July 15-16, 2007. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

[alan1chef]

From Business Week online, June 14, 2004. Leave it to those economists from Harvard to come up with a truly scientific study of liberal media bias.



ECONOMIC VIEWPOINT
By Robert J. Barro
The Liberal Media: It's No Myth

Many people think the mainstream media have a liberal bias. Media spokesmen,
however, usually deny such claims. So who's right? Is there a left-wing bias, or has the
right wing conspired not only to influence the media but also to create a false image of
unfairness? Some scientific evidence is available in a continuing study, A Measure of
Media Bias, by Tim Groseclose of the University of California at Los Angeles and Jeff
Milyo of the University of Chicago, presented last March at Stanford University's Workshop on the Media &
Economic Performance. These researchers set up an objective measure of bias in U.S. television networks,
newspapers, and magazines. The main finding is that the liberal inclination is pronounced. Although Fox News
emerges as conservative, it is not nearly as far to the right as many outlets are to the left.
Groseclose and Milyo began with the well-known ratings of the voting records of U.S. senators and
representatives by Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a self-described liberal lobbying group. The
researchers used data for the 1990s and adjusted the ADA scores to make them comparable over time and
across the two chambers. On a 0-100 scale, with 100 the most liberal, the median member of the U.S. House
had an ADA score of 39. Thus, 39 is a reasonable measure of a centrist position. Among well-known senators,
Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) had a highly conservative score of 4, whereas Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) had a
strikingly liberal score of 80.
THE NEXT STEP MEASURED the tendency of Senate and House members in their speeches to cite 200
prominent think tanks. The citations considered were those that referred favorably to a view or fact presented by
a think tank. Not counted were negative citations or those purely descriptive of a think tank's actions. As an
example, the Heritage Foundation was cited by legislators whose average ADA ratings were 6 -- that is, very
conservative. Also highly conservative were the Family Research Council (rating of 6) and the National Right
to Life Committee (7). Left-wing think tanks included the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities (80), the
Children's Defense Fund (77), and the Economic Policy Institute (72). Surprisingly, the American Civil
Liberties Union was centrist (35), an outcome driven by the ACLU's opposition to campaign-finance reform.
The last step measured the tendency of various media outlets to cite the same 200 think tanks. The researchers
considered only "news stories" -- not editorials, letters to the editor, and so on. The periods covered ranged from
1990 to 2003. Again, the citations were those that referred favorably to a view or fact provided by a think tank.
The researchers used this information to calculate a right- vs. left-wing indicator for each media outlet --
effectively, an ADA rating. The assumption is that media outlets that refer favorably to conservative think tanks
are reasonably characterized as conservative, whereas those that refer positively to liberal think tanks are
plausibly labeled as liberal. The final product (in a preliminary table provided by the authors) was a list of
computed ADA ratings for the media outlets.
On the conservative end, Fox News Special Report came out with a rating of 27; that is, 12 points more
conservative than the 39 of the median member of the House. The only other right-of-center outlet was The
Washington Times, at 34.
On the liberal end, Newsweek had an astonishing rating of 72 -- that's 33 points more liberal than the House
median. Other highly liberal outlets included The New York Times, Time magazine, the CBS Evening News,
Robert J. Barro
USA Today, and NBC Nightly News. These scores ranged from 62 to 64, about 25 points above the House
median. For viewers seeking truly "fair and balanced" reporting, the best outlets were ABC Good Morning
America and NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. The ADA scores for these programs were 39 and 41, respectively.
Places moderately left of center were CNN's NewsNight with Aaron Brown (49), The Washington Post (53),
NPR's Morning Edition (55) and ABC WorldNews Tonight (55).
Because of problems in data collection, the list excluded The Wall Street Journal, but it will be added soon.
Also excluded is talk radio, which seems to have a conservative bent. Bottom line: The Groseclose-Milyo study
shows the media are skewed substantially to the left of the typical member of Congress. Thus, if the opinions of
viewers and readers are similar to those of their representatives, the media slant is far to the left of that of most
of their customers.
Robert J. Barro is a professor of economics at Harvard University and a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution
([email protected])

[PigDogg]

(alan1chef @ Oct. 23 2009,23:15) MSNBC and CNBC Seen as Having Liberal Bias (Rasmussen survey from 2007)

MSNBC has a liberal bias.

CNBC, givve me a break? Kudlow the klown is as Reaganomics as they come. CNBC's main bias is to be slightly bullish so you need to read between the lines.

New York Tmes reflects the views of Manhattanites.

I suppose Fox reflects the views of inbred West Virginian hillbillies.

All media is biased because the perceived truth is subjective. Having said that, Fox will intentionally slant the news.

[Torurot]

You mean as far as the "right" is concerned, if you are either for, or neutral on subjects such as Kahuna's "Ladyboy Worshipping Dicksucker", and you don't believe in "god" and go to church on Sunday, and perhaps you are against wars, especially unnecessary illegal wars, and you don't want all "gays" killed or worse, you are painted "Liberal".

[El_hefe]

Anyone who thinks CNBC has a "liberal" bias has serious perspective issues. Really.

Having said that I thought it would be a balancing situation when Fox started out, but it has really turned into a lowest common denominator circus over there esp. now with Glenn Beck slowly losing his mind bit by bit every day on live TV, this must be what the Father Coughlin broadcasts were like.

And virtually all of the Fox women are blondes in red clothes, whats up with that? Scary, Stepford anchors...

What finally pushed this semi-libertarian back into the light (altho I never took Fox that seriously or watched it much) was watching Fox the night the Navy Seal sharpshooters rescued the Captain of the American ship that had been hijacked and Hannity was trying his hardest to turn it into a defeat for Obama... because he was "taking credit", which he explicitly wasn't. Bernie Goldberg actually had to chastise Hannity for his blindness on air.

And the sponsorship of Tea Parties and the producer warming up the crowds for the storyline they want it to fit, I saw a "The View" where Whoopi and Barbara Walters confronted Beck on his lying about them and he admitted it ON THE AIR and apologized to them.... really disgusting.

Having said that it is awful that the administration has blackballed them, this will seriously misfire.

[pacman]

I don't know what else the administration could do in the face of such blind & continuous attacks.

It may misfire but it also may wake a few up that for the next few years, Fox has been reduced to a cry in the wilderness. If the government isn't listening to them, they are just preaching to the converted.

The best way for Obama & his team to undermine Fox is to go for Murdoch's financial situation. It has always been Rupert's achilles heel.

He carries enormous debt & he aint that strong. All this talk of him having to charge for News Ltd news content ($250 per year for the Wall Street Journal internet service) reveals his discomfort.

I will know when the administation has pushed that button when we start to see a softening of Fox's attitude towards Obama.

And any big name on-air presenters who refuse to toe the company line may find themself looking for new employment.

This is the serious end of town folks & gentlemen's rules don't apply.

[geezer]

I find it funny how when the Bush was in office everything was fair game rightly or wrongly so.

Now Obama is in office we have to be nice to him and any negative comments, attack the messenger not the message.

Time for Ram Emanual to grow up. Could you imagine the hissy fit if Bush refused to speak to news organisations that gave him negative coverage. He'd probably be only talking to fox then.

I think it's a massive own goal by the administration. All they are doing is pushing people onto fox to see what they are saying. fox is going to go after the Dems as they realise there is no other comercial conservative new organisation. From a business point of view it's a great move. From a democratic point of view, the more opinions the better and I'll decide what I want to watch, not the government.

As for going after Murdoch? Why? Should Bush have gone after George Soros? Who is the true fascist here. A right wing news organisation or an administration that is trying to shut down a news organisation because it does not like it's message? The road to hell is paved with good intensions.

ps Turout, great idea for a thread.

[Lefty]

(PigDogg @ Oct. 24 2009,15:01)

(alan1chef @ Oct. 23 2009,23:15) MSNBC and CNBC Seen as Having Liberal Bias (Rasmussen survey from 2007)

MSNBC has a liberal bias.

CNBC, givve me a break?  Kudlow the klown is as Reaganomics as they come.  CNBC's main bias is to be slightly bullish so you need to read between the lines.

New York Tmes reflects the views of Manhattanites.

I suppose Fox reflects the views of inbred West Virginian hillbillies.

All media is biased because the perceived truth is subjective.  Having said that, Fox will intentionally slant the news.

Good to see you take off the gloves once in a while.

[Tomcat]

Fox news is biased , sure, but i dont have any problems with it as far as Far Eastern Hotel TV is concerned... so i last week or so i had the choice on only 10 channel i  my Hong Kong Hotel...mind you i am a confirmed Right Wing Loonie as you guys call us.. do i care. ..no

When the options are Sky News, The BBC world Service (biased), some stupid Australian Zoo channel and the local Chinese crap Fox news starts to look good

They certainly got the marketing right and some clever Pyschology as well where everyone smiles and seems happy...just read between the lines like i have to with the BBC which is the UK national news service and 100% biased in favour the left wing...

good luck Fox   my Xmas card will be in the post soon

(in Thailand i have Bloomberg on most of the time .. a great channel)

[JaiDee]

(PigDogg @ Oct. 24 2009,15:01) I suppose Fox reflects the views of inbred West Virginian hillbillies.

 I'd agree with that.

  I can't imagine their viewership is as high in foward-thinking west and east coast cities as it is in places like WV and Arkansas, Oklahoma and Mississippi, etc..... as mentioned here before; the Bible belt.  Read; places that most americans from either coast really even care less about.

  Newsweek, granted now a liberal rag, had a column this week;

  "The O'Garbage Factor;  Fox news isn't just bad, it's Un-American''

  Even before I read the article by Jacob Weisberg I was agreeing with him; Shit, I've been saying that up here for years now, they are dangerous and un-American because their views scare every day Yanks into thinking their world is a more dangerous place than it really is, and for only showing their viewers one side of every issue; from the far right.

No one really believes that BS  'Fair and Balanced' mantra, do they?

  For sure MSNBC and NBC in general are slanted left, no one denies that; but  FOX and their viewers try and deny they are slanted right and that is just plain offensive.

[geezer]

(JaiDee @ Oct. 24 2009,20:05)

(PigDogg @ Oct. 24 2009,15:01) I suppose Fox reflects the views of inbred West Virginian hillbillies.

 I'd agree with that.

  I can't imagine their viewership is as high in foward-thinking west and east coast cities as it is in places like WV and Arkansas, Oklahoma and Mississippi, etc..... as mentioned here before; the Bible belt.  Read; places that no normal american from either coast really even cares about.

 

Not trying to make it personal but have you ever thought that people from these places you mention may not want to live on either coast. Further what makes the opinions of people from on either coast more important than others. They have the right to their opinion as much as you do. And just as you have a right to criticise their opinion, they have as much right to criticise yours. I agree fox is biased, but their not the only ones and for the administration to single them out is plain stupid. Going to "war" with fox is only going to help fox as nothing get's viewers like a cat fight. If your a politican you have to live with disent. If you like Obama and think he has good idea, he should be able to live with the criticism. It's only tin pot dictators bankrupt of leadership who can't put up with dissent.

And if you don't like it you also have the right to watch a different view point so I don't see what the problem is.

[JaiDee]

don't take it personally, people from east and west coast america have been criticizing middle america for years, half-jokingly;  have you never seen the famous New Yorker poster below?  To us it's just an area of the country to fly over to get to the other coast.


  I don't watch FOX news except for a quick chuckle, trust me....I am not a masochist.  But I will concur with your point that Obama has to take the criticisms less personally; he is the president now and has to understand he is going to have shots taken at him regularly.  Nixon tried to go to war with the DC newspapers after Watergate broke and we saw how well THAT worked out.

 Obama..... don't talk to FOX if you don't want to, but don't go to battle against them either, you can't win.