"Fox Fever"- The Latest Pandemic

[ainu-laire.livejournal.com]

I just read an article by Larry Elder and it is (IMO) one of the better articles about Fox News. It doesn't try and cover the fact that the channel is sympathetic to conservative view points, but at the same time it looks over the other news channels, giving hard statistics to show that, interestingly enough, Fox is actually the most 'fair and balanced' out of the news channels evaluated statistically.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20091105/cm_uc_crlelx/op_2411876

Comments

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

Just making a general comment here, I'll have to read the article at a later time. (And I don't even watch Fox News, so this really is general!)

I understand the necessity of calling things conservative and liberal, otherwise we'd have no way to describe/talk about them.

But I think this just causes problems. When it comes to a news channel, it's either accurate in what they say or it is inaccurate. They either say things that are true or they say things that are false. Otherwise we end up with the situation we have, which is the idea that there is a "conservative viewpoint" and a "liberal viewpoint" to every story and therefore to every news station as a whole.

No, there is not. There's either the "true viewpoint" or a "false viewpoint". What is being said is either based in facts, or based in lies.

[athousandsmiles]

There's either the "true viewpoint" or a "false viewpoint". What is being said is either based in facts, or based in lies.

I don't think you can apply that to the media, sadly. They all spin things (even Fox) so that some of what they tell is neither true nor false. I still think Fox is more balanced than the others, but you still have to cut through the bull sometimes. In that sense, what else can you do but put the liberal or conservative label on the news networks.

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

Like I said, I don't watch it. (No cable.) So I'm not sure what a "conservative spin" would even be.

But yeah, I'm sure nothing is perfect so you need to use your own mind as well. There's only so much spin any story can get before it's just... not true anymore!

[athousandsmiles]

I recall during the election last year, a McCain ad that accused Obama of advocating sex education for kindergartners, and the Obama camp denying it. On Fox News one night, I heard Brit Hume (and a guest) declaring that the ad was true. So I went and looked up the very bill they were talking about and found that the claim was neither true nor false. The bill didn't specify an age for the proposed sex education, and the language of it was murky enough ("age appropriate") that either side could make their case for whether or not it was true.

So... Brit Hume and guest didn't lie, but... they didn't tell the whole truth either. It's maddening to me.

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

A half truth like that is still a lie. If something is deliberately vague like this bill you're talking about here, all you have do is say it the way you just did: This bill doesn't specify an age, so it could be used this way or that way.

The thing is, it does take some time to look things up yourself. Some people are just lazy. But even for those who make the effort, it can be difficult (not to mention time consuming) to find correct information. There is such an overload of information out there. You could be at it literally 24/7 and there's just no way to keep up with everything. It's insane.

That's why I think newspeople have one of the most important jobs on earth. Think of the power and responsibility they have. It is THEIR JOB to look things up, sort things out and give ACCURATE information to the public. The fact that they don't is a source of endless frustration on my part. How I wish I could start my life over. I'd try to get into journalism. Not a TV newsperson on camera (ACK!) but in print. I really consider it to be a high calling that has been utterly perverted.

[gotsparkly.livejournal.com]

Not so. There's only one true viewpoint, but there's lots of false ones and lots more that hold part of the truth. There's truth, and then there's perception. By giving only parts of the truth, you can create a misleading appearance without ever truly lying, and you end up creating lies out of facts. That is why the courtroom oath goes "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

I agree that you can mix things up with true and false stuff to make it say what you want. Take Michael Moore's movies. He can take a video of a real person saying real words at a real point in time. But if you do that and then chop it up, you can make it sound like they said the exact opposite of what they did. So yeah, I understand that.

Other than that type of blatant manipulation, I'm not sure how you can make something true not be so, or something false not be so. I'd need a specific example.

[ccr1138.livejournal.com]

This is what I keep telling a liberal friend. He only THINKS Fox is biased because it presents both viewpoints, and he can't bear to hear anything that contradicts his worldview.

[lilliew.livejournal.com]

I think most non-Fox viewers have been given such biased news for so long that they don't know how to deal with something different. I know I did until I realized how biased the MSM was and made the switch.

And liberal tactic, if you keep saying something often and loud enough, people will believe it.

[modernelegance.livejournal.com]

I thought this was a brilliant article...so brilliant that I bookmarked it!

[shezan.livejournal.com]

I'm just crazy about Larry!

[longlostblue.livejournal.com]

Liberals are incapable of seeing this. They don't view the mainstream media as being biased because they agree with the bias!

[jenny-wildcat.livejournal.com]

Wow - even viewers of the MSM can`t disagree with the facts. I suspected, but I wasn`t sure it was true. Glad I watch Fox.

"BMW - Bitch, moan and whine." LOL! I`m using that phrase ^_^