Murdoch: ‘If we weren’t fair and balanced, we wouldn’t have the number one network in news.’

[Heracles 417]

You do realise though that what you're doing here is almost the exact same thing that these news networks do - pigeon hole and cast blame with as wide a net as possible.

You're wrong. You seem to have a big problem with accepting the concept of empirical evidence.

As I said before, I watched his show a number of times and gave him the benefit of the doubt but got tired of hearing the same VJ groupish tune. What I did not do is pull a Steven, that is, to watch the show with the sole purpose of finding points to criticize.

I even watch Bill Maher every now and then and I completely disagree with this guy. Why, because he has some interesting points. A different perspective to that of my own. He also shows a side that is ultra left, which I am curious to comprehend. However, if I was to watch his show with a preconceived bias that nothing this idiot says is correct, then he could write out the cure for cancer and I would still disagree with it; basically because I dislike him. It is exactly what libs do to Bill O and exactly what they do with posters here. As soon as they personally dislike someone, forgetaboutit. From the get go, they discredit anything that person says.

That is just not me. I will even listen to my enemies. Which is why I agree with Ron Paul on 9/11. These guys didn't attack American because they are jealous or envy the country, the attacked it because they are sick of us meddling in their affairs, especially when it serves our own self interests. My republican buds have wanted to punch me out for suggesting that.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Constellation

[SMOKE 1,426]

Can I ask why anyone bothers to watch or listen to these commentators?

Does anyone actually like their analysis and interviewing?

Hannity kicks a$$!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You do realise though that what you're doing here is almost the exact same thing that these news networks do - pigeon hole and cast blame with as wide a net as possible.

You're wrong. You seem to have a big problem with accepting the concept of empirical evidence.

As I said before, I watched his show a number of times and gave him the benefit of the doubt but got tired of hearing the same VJ groupish tune. What I did not do is pull a Steven, that is, to watch the show with the sole purpose of finding points to criticize.

I even watch Bill Maher every now and then and I completely disagree with this guy. Why, because he has some interesting points. A different perspective to that of my own. He also shows a side that is ultra left, which I am curious to comprehend. However, if I was to watch his show with a preconceived bias that nothing this idiot says is correct, then he could write out the cure for cancer and I would still disagree with it; basically because I dislike him. It is exactly what libs do to Bill O and exactly what they do with posters here. As soon as they personally dislike someone, forgetaboutit. From the get go, they discredit anything that person says.

That is just not me. I will even listen to my enemies. Which is why I agree with Ron Paul on 9/11. These guys didn't attack American because they are jealous or envy the country, the attacked it because they are sick of us meddling in their affairs, especially when it serves our own self interests. My republican buds have wanted to punch me out for suggesting that.

I know what Empirical Evidence is BY and your opinion (or mine) isn't it.

[mawilson 2,133]

Can I ask why anyone bothers to watch or listen to these commentators?

Does anyone actually like their analysis and interviewing?

Neil Cavuto? Yeah, he's very good.

FBN (Fox Business News) is a much better channel too.

[Peikko 1,575]

What 'empirical evidence of what'?

You seem to imagine (but correct me if I am wrong here) that in order to get a fair and balanced representation of political reality you must necessarily watch these programs. That is simply incorrect. These programs are extremely limited in what they offer in terms of content and analysis and the only thing one gains by watching them is an understanding of the shows themselves. That is not necessary in order to understand the political landscape.

[Heracles 417]

Can I ask why anyone bothers to watch or listen to these commentators?

Does anyone actually like their analysis and interviewing?

Hannity kicks a$$!

My bro beck is on Fox now. Though, he is a states rights anti big government kind of guy. Whereas I am a federalist. The party the libs hijacked and turned into a humanity will a die if we don't have rights and the ACLU type party.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Glen Beck's show is f*cking terrible. Not as cartoonishly ridiculous as Michael Savage, but pretty awful nonetheless.

[rclouse 0]

FOX NEWS 'FAIR AND BALANCED' SAYS FOX NEWS

[nowhereman 1]

Let me sum up the right winger's defense of Fox so we can all sign off & go drink a beer: I agree with Fox's opinions so their views must be fair & balanced.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Right wingers will counter & say that other networks (e.g. CNN) are biased as well & they may very well be, but these networks tend to take a more subtle approach & at least make an attempt to be unbiased.

I think the more accurate word would be objectivity in journalism. It is impossible for any journalist not to have their own bias.

Objectivity is a significant principle of journalistic professionalism. Journalistic objectivity can refer to fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and most importantly, nonpartisanship, but most often encompasses all of these qualities.

....

O'Reilly, Hannity and Olberman aren't even pretending to be objective because their programs are opinion/editorial based, which is fine as long as O'Reilly along with Murdoch don't pretend that the 'Fair and Balanced' umbrella applies to all of Fox News programs, which is essentially your argument. They market the whole network as being objective and that is the absurdity of it. I haven't heard Keith Olberman state that he is being objective....but O'Reilly.... ...he's an animal all by himself.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

FOX NEWS 'FAIR AND BALANCED' SAYS FOX NEWS

Well the fair and balanced thing is a marketing slogan (hence the ^TM). It has little real meaning - only to people who want to believe their own propaganda.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Private Pike

[Heracles 417]

What 'empirical evidence of what'?

You seem to imagine (but correct me if I am wrong here) that in order to get a fair and balanced representation of political reality you must necessarily watch these programs. That is simply incorrect. These programs are extremely limited in what they offer in terms of content and analysis and the only thing one gains by watching them is an understanding of the shows themselves. That is not necessary in order to understand the political landscape.

Empirical evidence applies to everything and anything. To you and six, that is not valid and must be discredited. Have a read of a few scholarly reviewed academic journals and you will see otherwise.

For example: You guys refuse to accept the link between minorities and the higher rate of crime within those groups. In your opinion, the higher crime rate has something to do with history and equality, rather than attitude, priorities and culture.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Constellation

[Peikko 1,575]

Could you at least try to stick to the question when answering instead of going off on one of your now infamous tangents?

Empirical evidence does not apply to anything and everything btw - necessarily so it has a specific meaning.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What 'empirical evidence of what'?

You seem to imagine (but correct me if I am wrong here) that in order to get a fair and balanced representation of political reality you must necessarily watch these programs. That is simply incorrect. These programs are extremely limited in what they offer in terms of content and analysis and the only thing one gains by watching them is an understanding of the shows themselves. That is not necessary in order to understand the political landscape.

Empirical evidence applies to everything and anything. To you and six, that is not valid and must be discredited. Have a read of a few scholarly reviewed academic journals and you will see otherwise.

For example: You guys refuse to accept the link between minorities and the higher rate of crime within those groups. In your opinion, the higher crime rate has something to do with history and equality, rather than attitude, priorities and culture.

What you're presenting isn't "Empirical Evidence" - its just you using the term divorced of its actual meaning to give weight to your opinions.

As to your "example" - well... its plain wrong for one. Second, your statement is actually contradictory because if we didn't accept the relationship between racial minorities and crime we wouldn't be talking about "history and equality" in relation to it.

[mawilson 2,133]

O'Reilly, Hannity and Olberman aren't even pretending to be objective because their programs are opinion/editorial based, which is fine as long as O'Reilly along with Murdoch don't pretend that the 'Fair and Balanced' umbrella applies to all of Fox News programs, which is essentially your argument. They market the whole network as being objective and that is the absurdity of it. I haven't heard Keith Olberman state that he is being objective....but O'Reilly.... ...he's an animal all by himself.

You just proved BY's point.

I bet you never even watched O'Reilly's show once - yet you're calling him an animal based on a couple of YouTube videos taken out of context.