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

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Kaydee, These people here are not interested in fair and balanced. They are more interested in the drive-by medias pot shots at the GOP. That is what they like.

this is what I was talking about earlier, Gary.

TV news is the information equivalent of a fast-food diet.

[HAL 9000 96]

so you advocate spitting on women. very nice

it still remains that i don't care about her taking anything back - she went to north vietnam. end of story.

Ahhh I see your snide logic once... again.

snide logic in stating she went and is guilty of her actions? very interesting.

As far as my patriotism is concerned... I prefer to honor the principles and not the fanatism that has skewed the meaning of freedom in this country towards the benefit of those that maintain the current state of things. "Dissent dare not show itself here or else... kind of reasoning." Sickening.

must be why you didn't feel like serving for very long.

Only what I had to serve. There are many other ways of maintaining freedom alive beyond being someone else's drone.

oh and now it's dronework. how nice of you to think that about those who continue to serve. and maybe that's why you didn't last long in the military.

Nice try

i'm certain the military is better without you.

If that's what you want to believe. To be fair though, there was dronework (to be proud of) and there was mindless dronework (to not be proud of).

Sucks when you have nothing else to say, right?

[Ban Hammer 14,638]

so you advocate spitting on women. very nice

it still remains that i don't care about her taking anything back - she went to north vietnam. end of story.

Ahhh I see your snide logic once... again.

snide logic in stating she went and is guilty of her actions? very interesting.

As far as my patriotism is concerned... I prefer to honor the principles and not the fanatism that has skewed the meaning of freedom in this country towards the benefit of those that maintain the current state of things. "Dissent dare not show itself here or else... kind of reasoning." Sickening.

must be why you didn't feel like serving for very long.

Only what I had to serve. There are many other ways of maintaining freedom alive beyond being someone else's drone.

oh and now it's dronework. how nice of you to think that about those who continue to serve. and maybe that's why you didn't last long in the military.

Nice try

i'm certain the military is better without you.

If that's what you want to believe. To be fair though, there was dronework (to be proud of) and there was mindless dronework (to not be proud of).

Sucks when you have nothing else to say, right?

pretty much, given what you got out of it. as for me, i was honored and proud to serve my nation.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Kaydee, These people here are not interested in fair and balanced. They are more interested in the drive-by medias pot shots at the GOP. That is what they like.

this is what I was talking about earlier, Gary.

TV news is the information equivalent of a fast-food diet.

[HAL 9000 96]

so you advocate spitting on women. very nice

it still remains that i don't care about her taking anything back - she went to north vietnam. end of story.

Ahhh I see your snide logic once... again.

snide logic in stating she went and is guilty of her actions? very interesting.

As far as my patriotism is concerned... I prefer to honor the principles and not the fanatism that has skewed the meaning of freedom in this country towards the benefit of those that maintain the current state of things. "Dissent dare not show itself here or else... kind of reasoning." Sickening.

must be why you didn't feel like serving for very long.

Only what I had to serve. There are many other ways of maintaining freedom alive beyond being someone else's drone.

oh and now it's dronework. how nice of you to think that about those who continue to serve. and maybe that's why you didn't last long in the military.

Nice try

i'm certain the military is better without you.

If that's what you want to believe. To be fair though, there was dronework (to be proud of) and there was mindless dronework (to not be proud of).

Sucks when you have nothing else to say, right?

pretty much, given what you got out of it. as for me, i was honored and proud to serve my nation.

Having critical thinking skills and the motivation to disagree with those that rule are not synonymous with being unpatriotic. In fact, encouraging the squashing of dissent is much more unpatriotic than you will ever know.

FWIW I always think of my past as honorable and I never regret any of my priors. It seems we share lots more in common that you care to *think*.

[Ban Hammer 14,638]

If that's what you want to believe. To be fair though, there was dronework (to be proud of) and there was mindless dronework (to not be proud of).

Sucks when you have nothing else to say, right?

pretty much, given what you got out of it. as for me, i was honored and proud to serve my nation.

Having critical thinking skills and the motivation to disagree with those that rule are not synonymous with being unpatriotic. In fact, encouraging the squashing of dissent is much more unpatriotic than you will ever know.

FWIW I always think of my past as honorable and I never regret any of my priors. It seems we share lots more in common that you care to *think*.

dissent has no place in the military. it's to protect democracy, not to practice it. nor does the military have "those that rule" in it.

[Peikko 1,575]

So, let me see if I have this correct, if you watch Fox, your news and views are relatively unbiased but if you think all tv news is ####### you're a liberal and by definition, if you are a liberal your views are #######?

I like the fuzzy logic.

[Ban Hammer 14,638]

So, let me see if I have this correct, if you watch Fox, your news and views are relatively unbiased but if you think all tv news is ####### you're a liberal and by definition, if you are a liberal your views are #######?

I like the fuzzy logic.

incorrect - if you watch fox news, you're uninformed sheeple while those who watch a real news network like cnn or msnbc are better informed.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well every media outlet is subject to criticism - that's part of their oversight process.

One thing I will say about NPR is that they cover stories that get no exposure on any of the corporate networks.

On "quality" this is quite interesting. A survey from 2003 found that people's beliefs people's beliefs in certain misperceptions of the Iraq war varied quite significantly according to their primary source of news.

Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War

Guess what it says about the corporate networks...

And then there is this angle on that subject.

Five Years of Slant Against Iraq War Success

Five years ago this week, an international coalition of troops led by the U.S. invaded Iraq, overthrowing Saddam Hussein's tyrannical dictatorship in just three weeks. Since then, Iraqis have voted in free democratic elections to seat a representative parliament; Saddam and several of his henchmen have been tried and convicted in public war crimes trials; and a bloody insurgency fomented by al Qaeda in Iraq is in retreat after a surge of U.S. troops and a shift to more aggressive counter-insurgency tactics.

Analysts at the Media Research Center have studied TV news coverage of the Iraq war from the beginning, even before the first bombs fell on Baghdad in March 2003. The record shows the networks have trumpeted bad news — setbacks for the U.S. coalition and allegations of misdeeds by American troops — while minimizing good news such as the success of the 2007 troop surge and acts of heroism by U.S. soldiers.

■ Pre-War Opponents. Contrary to prevailing liberal mythology, all three networks (especially ABC) tilted their pre-war news in favor of Bush administration opponents. Covering the congressional debate over using force, for example, the networks gave a majority of soundbites (59%) to the losing anti-war side. Reporters also sanitized the "peace" movement, masking the radical affiliations of left-wing organizers while showcasing more sympathetic "middle class" demonstrators.

■ Combat Coverage. Soon after coalition troops liberated Iraq, MRC reviewers awarded decent grades to most of the TV networks, praising the fine, factual reports presented by the embedded journalists who rode along with U.S. troops. But poor marks went to TV reporters stationed in Baghdad, who often passed along the enemy's unverified propaganda. Worst of all was MSNBC's Peter Arnett, who reported lies about U.S. use of "cluster bombs" against Iraqi civilians. Arnett was later fired for denouncing the U.S. in a Saddam propaganda video.

■ Hyping Misdeeds, Hiding Heroes. In less than two weeks during the spring of 2004, NBC alone pumped out 58 stories on the Abu Ghraib prison abuse story, but in the preceding year devoted only five stories to the discovery of mass graves of Saddam's victims. In 2006, the networks jumped on unproved charges of a Marine "massacre" at Haditha, with more than 200 minutes of coverage in three weeks. During the preceding five years, those networks gave just 52 minutes to the stories of America's highest-decorated soldiers in the war on terror.

■ Mostly Bad News. In 2005, Iraq was a mixed bag — historic democratic elections, but continued violence. But an MRC study showed the network coverage emphasized the bad news. Out of 1,712 evening news stories, the lion's share (848, or 61%) focused on U.S. casualties, bombings, kidnappings or political setbacks, compared to just 245 (14%) that reported positive developments. (The remainder were mixed or neutral.) An MRC study of cable news coverage in 2006 found that all three networks emphasized bad news, although the Fox News Channel aired nearly as many stories about coalition success in Iraq (81) as CNN (41) and MSNBC (47) combined.

■ Little Time for Good News. The last six months have seen a massive reduction in insurgent attacks and U.S. casualties. But the three broadcast evening newscasts have shown little interest in the good news, with coverage dropping every month since September. (See chart.)

A 2005 survey of top journalists conducted by the Pew Research Center found the media were far more anti-war than the general public. The networks' performance over last five years makes that painfully obvious. - Rich Noyes

http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/...fax20080317.asp

That may be true - but that's not really the same. Regardless of bias - people who cited corporate network news as their primary source of information were significantly more likely to express belief in things that had no basis in fact.

Bumpity bumpity bump

[SaadBell 0]

They all lie, shame shame shame!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

They all lie, shame shame shame!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That video was stupid. Anything that involves Sean Penn as a champion is useless in my eyes.

A man that only stands by his convictions when he benefits.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So, let me see if I have this correct, if you watch Fox, your news and views are relatively unbiased but if you think all tv news is ####### you're a liberal and by definition, if you are a liberal your views are #######?

I like the fuzzy logic.

Put it this way its like a person who has never had steak quibbling about the choice between a big mac and a whopper.

[HAL 9000 96]

If that's what you want to believe. To be fair though, there was dronework (to be proud of) and there was mindless dronework (to not be proud of).

Sucks when you have nothing else to say, right?

pretty much, given what you got out of it. as for me, i was honored and proud to serve my nation.

Having critical thinking skills and the motivation to disagree with those that rule are not synonymous with being unpatriotic. In fact, encouraging the squashing of dissent is much more unpatriotic than you will ever know.

FWIW I always think of my past as honorable and I never regret any of my priors. It seems we share lots more in common that you care to *think*.

dissent has no place in the military. it's to protect democracy, not to practice it. nor does the military have "those that rule" in it.

Then I suppose there is no such thing as following orders... unless you're referring to the military in the US being subject to civilian control by way of the Commander in Chief, and this position being subject (in a democracy) to the will of the citizenry.

The comment regarding dissent, OTOH, had nothing to do with being in service. It has everything to do with the underlined above. Stop writing petty.

Well every media outlet is subject to criticism - that's part of their oversight process.

One thing I will say about NPR is that they cover stories that get no exposure on any of the corporate networks.

On "quality" this is quite interesting. A survey from 2003 found that people's beliefs people's beliefs in certain misperceptions of the Iraq war varied quite significantly according to their primary source of news.

Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War

Guess what it says about the corporate networks...

And then there is this angle on that subject.

Five Years of Slant Against Iraq War Success

Five years ago this week, an international coalition of troops led by the U.S. invaded Iraq, overthrowing Saddam Hussein's tyrannical dictatorship in just three weeks. Since then, Iraqis have voted in free democratic elections to seat a representative parliament; Saddam and several of his henchmen have been tried and convicted in public war crimes trials; and a bloody insurgency fomented by al Qaeda in Iraq is in retreat after a surge of U.S. troops and a shift to more aggressive counter-insurgency tactics.

Analysts at the Media Research Center have studied TV news coverage of the Iraq war from the beginning, even before the first bombs fell on Baghdad in March 2003. The record shows the networks have trumpeted bad news — setbacks for the U.S. coalition and allegations of misdeeds by American troops — while minimizing good news such as the success of the 2007 troop surge and acts of heroism by U.S. soldiers.

â–  Pre-War Opponents. Contrary to prevailing liberal mythology, all three networks (especially ABC) tilted their pre-war news in favor of Bush administration opponents. Covering the congressional debate over using force, for example, the networks gave a majority of soundbites (59%) to the losing anti-war side. Reporters also sanitized the "peace" movement, masking the radical affiliations of left-wing organizers while showcasing more sympathetic "middle class" demonstrators.

â–  Combat Coverage. Soon after coalition troops liberated Iraq, MRC reviewers awarded decent grades to most of the TV networks, praising the fine, factual reports presented by the embedded journalists who rode along with U.S. troops. But poor marks went to TV reporters stationed in Baghdad, who often passed along the enemy's unverified propaganda. Worst of all was MSNBC's Peter Arnett, who reported lies about U.S. use of "cluster bombs" against Iraqi civilians. Arnett was later fired for denouncing the U.S. in a Saddam propaganda video.

â–  Hyping Misdeeds, Hiding Heroes. In less than two weeks during the spring of 2004, NBC alone pumped out 58 stories on the Abu Ghraib prison abuse story, but in the preceding year devoted only five stories to the discovery of mass graves of Saddam's victims. In 2006, the networks jumped on unproved charges of a Marine "massacre" at Haditha, with more than 200 minutes of coverage in three weeks. During the preceding five years, those networks gave just 52 minutes to the stories of America's highest-decorated soldiers in the war on terror.

■ Mostly Bad News. In 2005, Iraq was a mixed bag — historic democratic elections, but continued violence. But an MRC study showed the network coverage emphasized the bad news. Out of 1,712 evening news stories, the lion's share (848, or 61%) focused on U.S. casualties, bombings, kidnappings or political setbacks, compared to just 245 (14%) that reported positive developments. (The remainder were mixed or neutral.) An MRC study of cable news coverage in 2006 found that all three networks emphasized bad news, although the Fox News Channel aired nearly as many stories about coalition success in Iraq (81) as CNN (41) and MSNBC (47) combined.

â–  Little Time for Good News. The last six months have seen a massive reduction in insurgent attacks and U.S. casualties. But the three broadcast evening newscasts have shown little interest in the good news, with coverage dropping every month since September. (See chart.)

A 2005 survey of top journalists conducted by the Pew Research Center found the media were far more anti-war than the general public. The networks' performance over last five years makes that painfully obvious. - Rich Noyes

http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/...fax20080317.asp

That may be true - but that's not really the same. Regardless of bias - people who cited corporate network news as their primary source of information were significantly more likely to express belief in things that had no basis in fact.

Bumpity bumpity bump

Lol

Edited March 17, 2008 by maviwaro

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

BTW - what ever happened to that HSD "Terror Alert System" that used to be big in the news media a few years ago?

In fact, you used to hear about it a lot more during the 2004 election, as I recall.

[Ban Hammer 14,638]

If that's what you want to believe. To be fair though, there was dronework (to be proud of) and there was mindless dronework (to not be proud of).

Sucks when you have nothing else to say, right?

pretty much, given what you got out of it. as for me, i was honored and proud to serve my nation.

Having critical thinking skills and the motivation to disagree with those that rule are not synonymous with being unpatriotic. In fact, encouraging the squashing of dissent is much more unpatriotic than you will ever know.

FWIW I always think of my past as honorable and I never regret any of my priors. It seems we share lots more in common that you care to *think*.

dissent has no place in the military. it's to protect democracy, not to practice it. nor does the military have "those that rule" in it.

Then I suppose there is no such thing as following orders... unless you're referring to the military in the US being subject to civilian control by way of the Commander in Chief, and this position being subject (in a democracy) to the will of the citizenry.

so if it's the military of a democracy, does that make someone a ruler? no, so why throw that term out there? furthermore, it's a volunteer service, no one forced you to join. now stop comparing the military to serfdom.

The comment regarding dissent, OTOH, had nothing to do with being in service. It has everything to do with the underlined above. Stop writing petty.

maybe you need to write more clearly?