Study: Fox Is the Most Fair and Balanced Thus Far in Prez Campaign

[Jenn! 918]

I rest my case. Pure bias and hatred for anything they disagree with. Tow the party line or get smeared.

Gary, kind of hypocritical, no? See your post #9.

Anyway, I agree with DeadPool, you have to take everything with a grain of salt.

[simple_male 1]

Yeah... Faux is the most fair and balanced... lol

Fox, MSNBC, CNN all have a bias. Sometimes, Keith Olbermann calls Fox News as "Fox Noise" or "Fixed News." CNN was referred to Clinton News Network long time ago. I do like Olbermann and O'Reilly throwing punches against each other.

[Mark&Steph 0]

I'll stick with PBS, thanks.

[GaryC 7]

I rest my case. Pure bias and hatred for anything they disagree with. Tow the party line or get smeared.

Gary, kind of hypocritical, no? See your post #9.

Anyway, I agree with DeadPool, you have to take everything with a grain of salt.

Not hypocritical at all. That post was an attempt to shame the Fox news haters by pointing out their hatred with sarcasm.

[Jenn! 918]

I rest my case. Pure bias and hatred for anything they disagree with. Tow the party line or get smeared.

Gary, kind of hypocritical, no? See your post #9.

Anyway, I agree with DeadPool, you have to take everything with a grain of salt.

Not hypocritical at all. That post was an attempt to shame the Fox news haters by pointing out their hatred with sarcasm.

Oh, I guess I didn't get the sarcasm. Must be my self-imposed ignorance showing.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why is it every opinion has to be about "hate", and can only be understood in those terms?

Could the media be to blame for that way of looking at things? More than likely.

[GaryC 7]

Why is it every opinion has to be about "hate", and can only be understood in those terms?

Could the media be to blame for that way of looking at things? More than likely.

What else would you call it? Anytime some people refer to them it has to be called Faux news? I could post a story from Fox that the sun came up today and someone would say it's just more Faux News propaganda. Yet others can post stories from carpetbagger or huffington post and it's taken seriously. If you have another name for it other than hatred and bias then please enlighten me.

[greeneyedgirlfl 0]

I'll stick with PBS, thanks.

Me too...but I'm sure that's our self-imposed ignorance....

[HAL 9000 96]

CNN, MSNBC and FOX all have a bias. Those channels are run by people and as humans, we inevitably have biases. We may try not to and strive to be fair-minded even objective in many ways, but our own viewpoint will always color how we see things -- even if it's just barely noticeable.

So I don't see the point in running around screaming "this channel is more fair than that one!" or "that channel isn't a real one; it's full of propaganda and lies!" The news media is a business, plain and simple. There's nothing remotely "fair" about it. As for "propaganda" and "lies," if you believe everything you hear, see and read -- regardless of the source -- then all I can do is wish you luck in your life, since you'll need it.

Yes, all do have bias. CNN and the like have it leaning to the left and Fox has it leaning to the right. That is why you only see the left leaning people here b!tch about "Faux" news and not about the others. But on the whole Fox presents both side much better than any of the other news channels do. All I see from CNN et. all is the left's view of things. I guess that is why they like them. I guess since some here call Fox News "Faux" News I should start referring to CNN as the Clinton News Network or MSNBC should be referred to PMSNBC just to get an equal insult in.

When presenting two sides of an issue means ranting about one side (hey! It got presented) and praising the other as commonsensical... yeah, I guess one could see that as balance. LOL.

Again, when you can prove that any media corporation in this country leans left to a tenth of a degree then those of us that also have a 'left-leaning'- whatever that means to you, then maybe you'll get taken a little more seriously regarding THIS topic. I don't think labeling with rights and lefts will get you anywhere, to be honest though.

Yeah... Faux is the most fair and balanced... lol

Fox, MSNBC, CNN all have a bias. Sometimes, Keith Olbermann calls Fox News as "Fox Noise" or "Fixed News." CNN was referred to Clinton News Network long time ago. I do like Olbermann and O'Reilly throwing punches against each other.

It is hilarious as they all most likely take summer vacations in the Hamptoms together anyway.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why is it every opinion has to be about "hate", and can only be understood in those terms?

Could the media be to blame for that way of looking at things? More than likely.

What else would you call it? Anytime some people refer to them it has to be called Faux news? I could post a story from Fox that the sun came up today and someone would say it's just more Faux News propaganda. Yet others can post stories from carpetbagger or huffington post and it's taken seriously. If you have another name for it other than hatred and bias then please enlighten me.

You're assuming that people who call it that are trumpeting the comparative merits of other networks. I've called it Faux news, but as I've said many times - I think all corporate network news is rubbish.

I don't care about network loyalty - its simply another way for people to say "look at which party I support". I do care about news programming blurring the distinction between news reporting and editorial, sanitised reporting and poor news diversity.

[HAL 9000 96]

Why is it every opinion has to be about "hate", and can only be understood in those terms?

Could the media be to blame for that way of looking at things? More than likely.

What else would you call it? Anytime some people refer to them it has to be called Faux news? I could post a story from Fox that the sun came up today and someone would say it's just more Faux News propaganda. Yet others can post stories from carpetbagger or huffington post and it's taken seriously. If you have another name for it other than hatred and bias then please enlighten me.

Hey I'll stop if you ask me to

Seriously Gary, every time I turn Fox on... I see the same BS I see on CNN and MSNBC.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

CNN, MSNBC and FOX all have a bias. Those channels are run by people and as humans, we inevitably have biases. We may try not to and strive to be fair-minded even objective in many ways, but our own viewpoint will always color how we see things -- even if it's just barely noticeable.

So I don't see the point in running around screaming "this channel is more fair than that one!" or "that channel isn't a real one; it's full of propaganda and lies!" The news media is a business, plain and simple. There's nothing remotely "fair" about it. As for "propaganda" and "lies," if you believe everything you hear, see and read -- regardless of the source -- then all I can do is wish you luck in your life, since you'll need it.

Yes, all do have bias. CNN and the like have it leaning to the left and Fox has it leaning to the right. That is why you only see the left leaning people here b!tch about "Faux" news and not about the others. But on the whole Fox presents both side much better than any of the other news channels do. All I see from CNN et. all is the left's view of things. I guess that is why they like them. I guess since some here call Fox News "Faux" News I should start referring to CNN as the Clinton News Network or MSNBC should be referred to PMSNBC just to get an equal insult in.

When presenting two sides of an issue means ranting about one side (hey! It got presented) and praising the other as commonsensical... yeah, I guess one could see that as balance. LOL.

Again, when you can prove that any media corporation in this country leans left to a tenth of a degree then those of us that also have a 'left-leaning'- whatever that means to you, then maybe you'll get taken a little more seriously regarding THIS topic. I don't think labeling with rights and lefts will get you anywhere, to be honest though.

There was a study a few years ago that tried to measure the bias of individual journalists and found that except on social issues journalists are mostly centrist.

[GaryC 7]

CNN, MSNBC and FOX all have a bias. Those channels are run by people and as humans, we inevitably have biases. We may try not to and strive to be fair-minded even objective in many ways, but our own viewpoint will always color how we see things -- even if it's just barely noticeable.

So I don't see the point in running around screaming "this channel is more fair than that one!" or "that channel isn't a real one; it's full of propaganda and lies!" The news media is a business, plain and simple. There's nothing remotely "fair" about it. As for "propaganda" and "lies," if you believe everything you hear, see and read -- regardless of the source -- then all I can do is wish you luck in your life, since you'll need it.

Yes, all do have bias. CNN and the like have it leaning to the left and Fox has it leaning to the right. That is why you only see the left leaning people here b!tch about "Faux" news and not about the others. But on the whole Fox presents both side much better than any of the other news channels do. All I see from CNN et. all is the left's view of things. I guess that is why they like them. I guess since some here call Fox News "Faux" News I should start referring to CNN as the Clinton News Network or MSNBC should be referred to PMSNBC just to get an equal insult in.

When presenting two sides of an issue means ranting about one side (hey! It got presented) and praising the other as commonsensical... yeah, I guess one could see that as balance. LOL.

Again, when you can prove that any media corporation in this country leans left to a tenth of a degree then those of us that also have a 'left-leaning'- whatever that means to you, then maybe you'll get taken a little more seriously regarding THIS topic. I don't think labeling with rights and lefts will get you anywhere, to be honest though.

The liberal bias is so obvious that you would have to be blind not to see it. But here is just one story among many that shows a liberal bias in the news. I mean really, you can't see the left slant in the news from everyone but Fox?

NPR Admits a Liberal Bias

by L. Brent Bozell III

October 21, 2003 Tell a friend about this site

National Public Radio is properly understood, even by the media, as radio by and for liberals, not the general public. As Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz puts it, the media landscape stretches "from those who cheer Fox to those who swear by NPR."

The only ones who seem not to know that the left has a massive, taxpayer-funded radio network of 700 affiliates are the liberals trying to sell investors on their own private-sector talk-radio network. A recent PBS "NewsHour" story on talk radio turned ridiculous when reporter Terence Smith allowed liberal-network booster Jon Sinton to proclaim: "Every day in America on the 45 top-rated talk radio stations, there are 310 hours of conservative talk. There is a total of five hours of talk that comes from the other side of the aisle."

Don’t buy that for a minute. The key word in that sentence is "top-rated" stations. Sinton’s upset that conservatives apparently dominate "top-rated" talk. That doesn’t mean NPR doesn’t have hundreds of hours of liberal talk shows, not to mention liberal "news" shows. It’s just not "top-rated."

Last week, NPR’s own official ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, admitted a liberal bias in NPR’s talk programming. The daily program "Fresh Air with Terry Gross" – a 60-minute talk show about the arts, literature, and also politics – airs on 378 public-radio stations across the fruited plain. Gross recently became a hot topic on journalism Web sites for first having a friendly, giggly interview with "satirist" Al Franken, promoting his obnoxious screed against conservatives on September 3, and then on October 8, unloading an accusatory, hostile interview on Bill O’Reilly. She pressed the Fox host to respond to the obnoxious attacks of Franken and other critics. Dvorkin ruled: "Unfortunately, the [O'Reilly] interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some, in NPR's liberal media bias....by coming across as a pro-Franken partisan rather than a neutral and curious journalist, Gross did almost nothing that might have allowed the interview to develop."

The news reports on NPR should be cause for greater public concern. Under the guise of "objective news," reporting, the left is actively advancing its political agenda. On the October 17 "Morning Edition," host Bob Edwards launched into a long "news" report on the flaws of the Bush foreign policy, observing: "Overall, the policies of the United States are still very unpopular around the world. The Bush Doctrine, a preference for unilateral military action and a disdain for multinational diplomacy, is under scrutiny more than ever." The Middle East "road map" was "in tatters," Iraq and Afghanistan were "highly unstable." NPR may as well have suggested it was time for a different president.

Reporter Mike Shuster was intent on driving home the theme that the Bush foreign policy may (read: we hope) one day be analyzed as an utter failure. His three primary, supposedly nonpartisan "experts" were Ivo Daalder, a member of Clinton’s National Security Council; Michael Mandelbaum, a foreign policy adviser to the 1992 Clinton campaign; and John Mearshimer, a regular critic of Bush foreign policy who argued in Foreign Policy magazine that Iraq should have remained under "vigilant containment," which we could also describe as maintaining a murderous tyrant in power. Their controversial views and Clinton connections were not developed by NPR.

Perhaps the biggest public-relations problems for NPR come when its liberal reporters hit the weekend talk-show circuit and let their opinions fly wildly. On October 18, NPR legal reporter Nina Totenberg pronounced from her regular panelist perch on the TV show "Inside Washington" that General Jerry Boykin, who sermonized in Christian churches with the shocking, less-than-Unitarian message that Christianity is true and other creeds are false, should be fired.

Well, that’s not the way it came out. First, Totenberg said Boykin’s remarks were "seriously bad stuff," and then she said, "I hope he’s not long for this world." Host Gordon Peterson joked, "What is this, The Sopranos?" Withdrawing to damage-control mode, Totenberg said she didn’t mean she hoped he would die, just that he shouldn’t last long "in his job."

But it’s Totenberg who ought to fear for her job with these outbreaks of hate speech. Totenberg used this very same TV show to wish in 1995 that if the "Good Lord" knew justice, Senator Jesse Helms will "get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it."

It’s awfully ironic that a woman who has spent thirty years saying outrageous liberal things on the taxpayer dime is now attacking a general on the grounds that there ought to be some things government officials cannot say and keep their jobs. The concern over these Boykin remarks should not be about the separation of church and state. It ought to be about the separation of National Public Radio from the state.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns...col20031021.asp

[HAL 9000 96]

" I mean really, you can't see the left slant in the news from everyone but Fox? "

Left slants and liberalism, such a dirty concept, no?... brought to you by Gary or was it Fox?

Like I said, what I see on any major media co is the same BS. Take it as you will my friend.

[Ban Hammer 14,636]

pretty much why i don't pay any attention to npr, gary.