100 Days of 'Fair and Balanced'
Wow. Fox News Channel cannot rag on Obama enough! If you trust what they are saying, US citizens cannot hate Obama and his socialist agenda enough, yet Obama’s popularity remains fairly high. Hmmmm, funny how those things seem to contradict.
I don’t think MSNBC is any better on the other side, but that is the problem for me. We have two networks that are zealots for political parties. It’s laughable that Fox says they are fair and balanced, neither they or MSNBC are at all. All this does is divide the American people more, and quite frankly it’s bullshit for NEWS organizations to act this way. News should report news, not spin it through their vast conservative or liberal filters…
April 29, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
Cable news is a wasteland. It’s entertainment, not news. No one should get their news there. They are only good for covering breaking big news stories, even then, they are almost worthless.
April 29, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
well, politics aside, if I am gonna watch news that is so slanted its more entertainment – I will watch Fox for the lovely ladies. When it comes to the women, Fox kicks the crap out of MSNBC when it comes to eye candy
April 29, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
Hey, here in the people’s republic of Cambridge, MA we love Obama! What’s FOX News? I thought that was The Simpsons channel.
April 29, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
Dude, I love ya … but why so afraid of lil’ ‘ol Fox News when you have NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC ALL goosestepping? Are your positions that weak that you are afraid of the slightest bit alternative thought and dissension? I thought dissension was patriotic?
April 29, 2009 @ 4:23 pm
@4 – Not that old canard… MSNBC == FOX for liberals. ABC used to swing left but since about 2003 swings to the right heavily. CNN swings in whatever direction the wind is blowing. CBS and NBC don’t swing, they’re on freaking gyroscopes.
Nice Godwin reference, by the way.
April 29, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
@4 Goosestepping? Why is it conservatives love the Nazi Germany references so much?
Anyway, I’m not afraid of Fox news, I’m afraid of people that believe Fox news at face value. Just as much as I’m afraid of the MSNBC faithful that say Yes without questioning.
Problem is, these two network just cause more division in our country for the weak minded that can’t figure shit out for themselves.
Someone like John Head can watch Fox and realize it is what it is. Cooter out in the sticks is hiding under his bed with his gun and his bible waiting for ol’ Commie Socialist Bastard Obama to come knocking on his door and put him into a FEMA camp…
That’s what’s sad…
-Grey
April 29, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
@6 – Naw, Cooter’s not waiting and hiding anymore – he’s killing cops ’cause the government is out to get him now that the socialist ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H (oops, wait, that one didn’t work) communist ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H (rats, that one either) fascist (ah, now we’ve got it – who could possible approve of someone once they’re compared to Hitler? who cares if these labels are all mutually contradictory?) dictator is in charge.
What? I heard it on FOX, it must be true, they’re the only ‘fair and balanced’ network, aren’t they?
April 29, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
I loved this excerpt from the Gallup post you linked to:
“…the partisan pundits filling the airwaves, print pages, and blogosphere, seeking to convince those who watch, listen, or read of the correctness of their views and the incorrectness of their opponents’ views…”
Given enough time and energy, one could no doubt document a precise accounting of the quantity of positive and negative statements from Fox / MSNBC with regards to Obama, his administration, Congress, and so on, to not only confirm that each has a bias, but quantify the extent of that bias, and put to rest the debate over which is more slanted.
But I think the phrase above beautifully sums up the reason neither remains a credible news organization, the reason that they are now solely entertainment: they target the pleasure centers of our brains, not the learning or logic centers. Whether you are pleased or enraged while watching is based solely on the viewpoint you ALREADY had when you began watching. I would be quite surprised to find out that anyone had recently changed their mind about some issue or event DURING a broadcast from either network. The intent of each is only to reassure their core audience of how right they are to begin with.
Remember that movie “Se7en” where (spoiler alert) Brad Pitt kills Kevin Spacey because he killed Pitt’s pregnant wife, Gwyneth Paltrow (well, the characters played by said performers… you get the point)? I love that movie, and still occasionally watch it, but I always turn it off once the delivery truck arrives, because the ending pisses me off so much. But that’s the whole point of that movie: the events portrayed are SUPPOSED to make the viewer angry at the world as the writer perceives it to be. That’s the entire reason the movie exists. That form of anger is a weird, dark form of pleasure, and that’s the reason this genre still qualifies as entertainment. Sadly, it’s also the reason that politicized news exists and survives: the viewers just keep pressing the lever { Link } , so the advertisers keep paying.
April 30, 2009 @ 2:15 am
Sorry, Godwin does not apply. My comparison is apt however, one’s ignorance of history is not. One may want to check the definitions of various words being bandied about and how they have truly manifested themselves throughout history before throwing them around.
When the government takes over an industry, that is socialism and EXACTLY what Hitler did. How did he do it? Perhaps under the guise of protecting the people of Germany from the “evil Jews and Catholics?”
How about a more recent example of Obama’s new buddy Chávez in Venezuala? There, he just took over the oil fields because he wanted them. No illusion of protection there.
Today, we have a situation where the dems have taken over the auto and financial industries. How did they do it? Under the guise of protecting “us” but from what are they protecting us … Crappy, overpriced cars that people don’t want? People who couldn’t afford mortgages yet got them anyway? With the stimulus plan, (have you read it? I had to for work) why should you pay my mortgage? I mean, do you really want to? If you want to cut me a check, I’ll take it but I don’t need the government as a middleman.
Take any basic economics course and they’ll tell you on day one: it’s all cyclical. Over the course of a 10 year period, housing prices rise to dizzying heights and fall back down then rise back up. Since 1987, this is the third or fourth market correction we’ve had. Again, check your history.
Oh and how was Hitler on dissension or alternative views? How was he on that, really? Again, if you are going to be honest, he didn’t allow it.
If you actually watched Obama pat himself on the back tonight, where where the reporters for Fox? Did they get to ask any questions? Nah … but why do you want to hear from them, right? Why should ANYTHING this president does ever be challenged?
I am by no means an ideologue. I am a union member and literally, every single day, I support Democrats and am proud to do it because I believe in the people. I am, however, interested in alternative views. When TV news anchors have clearly lost all objectivity and get “tingles up their legs” about Obama (Chris Matthews), I’ve got to run.
April 30, 2009 @ 9:13 am
Alright, comparing Obama to Hitler is simply fucking ludicrous. Seriously.
Next you say Hitler wouldn’t allow alternative views, somehow insinuating that Obama is the same. Yet FoxNews exists, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter exist. The teabagging *snicker* parties existed. How is Obama not allowing it? Because he cherry picks at news conferences? Yeah, no president has ever done that before…
And really? “new buddy Chávez?” OH MY GOD HE SHOOK HIS HAND AND SMILED. He didn’t go golfing with the guy and then share a beachhouse.
Obviously Chávez is a thug and a dictator but is he someone we need to provoke RIGHT NOW? Should Obama have refused the handshake or book? What would that have done overall? I’d rather be smiling at an enemy before I knife him in the back as opposed to letting him know it’s coming. We can disagree on the approach, but Obama is far from best buddy status and to state otherwise isn’t simply an “alternative viewpoint” it’s fucking inacurate.
Now you completely bitch about all the failures of the auto companies, and mortgage companies and such, but you fail to acknowledge that happened on someone ELSE’s watch. Bush and the Republicans allowed it to happen. Now we could let them all fail, but I doubt that would be good for the country. At least Obama is trying something to rectify it. And at 100 days in, I’m willing to actually give him some time to see if it works before I pronounce it a failure. I wasn’t for the war in Iraq, but I gave it time before I called it a failure. And it was more than 100 days…
The Republicans so desperately want Obama to fail, but if he fails, our country will be pretty fucked for awhile. So I dunno, I would rather him succeed.
My whole point initially was FoxNews = partisan politics and MSNBC = partisan politics. It’s not objective news that allows the user to make decisions for themselves. It’s “the other guys suck” 24/7 and quite frankly I don’t think that is GOOD for the country for NEWS stations to be that way.
Start a Republican TV channel, then that’s fine, but news should be news and the fact that it is NOT in this country doesn’t help us as a nation in any way, shape or form.
If you know anything about me or this blog, you should know I value free speech completely, so I wouldn’t want things like FoxNews banned, I would seriously fight against it. That doesn’t mean I don’t have the right to voice my opinions and counter-opinions just like you do.
-Grey
May 20, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
I agree most news is slanted to one side or the other. I can also say while Bush may not have the greatest President, you can’t argue the fact that after 9/11 there were no more terrorist attacks on the US. However, as you continue your lova affair with Obama, you must admit many in his inner circle have some questionable histories. Look at Rahm E.
Here is some info I have dug up.
He was named to the Freddie Mac board in February 2000 by Clinton, whom Emanuel had served as White House political director and vocal defender during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky scandals.
The board met no more than six times a year. Unlike most fellow directors, Emanuel was not assigned to any of the board’s working committees, according to company proxy statements. Immediately upon joining the board, Emanuel and other new directors qualified for $380,000 in stock and options plus a $20,000 annual fee, records indicate.
On Emanuel’s watch, the board was told by executives of a plan to use accounting tricks to mislead shareholders about outsize profits the government-chartered firm was then reaping from risky investments. The goal was to push earnings onto the books in future years, ensuring that Freddie Mac would appear profitable on paper for years to come and helping maximize annual bonuses for company brass.
The accounting scandal wasn’t the only one that brewed during Emanuel’s tenure.
During his brief time on the board, the company hatched a plan to enhance its political muscle. That scheme, also reviewed by the board, led to a record $3.8 million fine from the Federal Election Commission for illegally using corporate resources to host fundraisers for politicians. Emanuel was the beneficiary of one of those parties after he left the board and ran in 2002 for a seat in Congress from the North Side of Chicago.
Please don’t get me wrong here I am not a right winger. I just want an honest government that is for the people. Not the corporations, not for the UN, not for just some of the people who government thinks need wealth redistribution but all the people. Also term limits for congress would help immensely as most of them only care about the next election cycle not what is best for the country.