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

[_Simpson_ 250]

I know NPR but what is PRI?

It is true though. If it weren't why are people treating fox news as though it were some sort of sacred cow?

The attitude isn't restricted to the right. It is however pretty typical of how this country frames political discourses.

I have never thought of them as a sacred cow (not saying you have acussed me of that). I have in this forum pointed out what it is I think that doesnt make them fair and balanced, that said I dont think fox news is as biased as many liberals here would say there are but nevertheless fox understands that the right wingers are there bread and butter and often choose stories that will peak there interest. We have little options when it comes to the media.

Not really true. Although the US is losing a portion of its newsheets, there are still a lot of quality newspapers out there and the vast majority have online versions. It just requires the ability to read for more than 30 seconds at any one time.

I meant tv media, thats what we were talking about. As far as other media, yes we do have plenty of outlets. Are you implying that right wingers are not capable of reading for more than 30 seconds.

No. No implication beyond the fact that TV is really only useful for those with ADD.

TV is not a good news source in the US, that's all there is to say. If you want news, then you need to delve a little deeper. Radio/newspapers/magazines.

Turning on my radio right now.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Well my conclusion is that VJ slants far right & if Obama gave every single family in the USA a million dollars (not practical I know, just an extreme example) the VJ hardcore wouldn't approve. I think you're take is just a tad different

from my perspective, it's more left.

Hey, Chuck!

Many of the Americans on VJ are leftist, but I don't get the same vibe from many of the immigrants who post.

[msu17 0]

Did anyone see Daily Show last night? John stewart was going on about this exact same thing. MSNBC and FOX both being insanely one-sided and CNN being a fluff filled...

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

TV news is shitty news source though.

For the most part, yes. For political commentary, there are some good programs with interesting guests. But for solid news coverage, network news is mediocre at best. By design, they cannot delve into issues with the depth needed, on a 30 minute newscast....21 minutes when you subtract the commercials.

But Steve - the networks you have been discussing here - Fox News, MSNBC, CNN - are in fact not "network news" - they are the 24X7 cable news stations which began their history with Ted Turners' original concept of CNN back in the 1980s as hard-hitting, facts based journalism. There was once upon a time when CNN really had journalistic integrity to rival the NY Times or Edward R. Murrow's CBS News organization. (Here's a quiz for all you young pups so enamored with Cavuto and O'Reilley and that crowd... do you even know who Edward R. Murrow was, and the impact he had on American broadcast journalism?).

But I digress.

The point I actually would make is that today all of the 24X7 cable "news" are just a wasteland. To me it's not a question of right vs. left. It's a question of is it journalism and facts-based reporting, or is it just mush. It's mostly just repetitive loops of human interest stories interspersed with shouting heads (not talking heads, mind you). So I just steer clear, and rarely do more than channel skip by them.

However, I do watch copious amounts of TV broadcast news. On the broadcast networks. I'll usually watch NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams - which is pretty cheesy and has too much fluff, but I have a DVR and zip past the crud.

More importantly - The Jim Lehrer Newshour. I have a crush on Gwen Ifill and appreciate the in depth reporting and research done by the reporting crew. I love the Friday night Shields/Brooks segment.

And of course -the network Sunday shows - Meet The Press, Face The Nation, This Week.

For those who want quality news information on the ####### tube, it exists.

For those who want it on the airwaves, it exists as well. Thank goodness for NPR and PRI!!! WBEZ Chicago is your friend at 91.5 on your dial.

Excellent points, Ron. Good night and good luck!

Well my conclusion is that VJ slants far right & if Obama gave every single family in the USA a million dollars (not practical I know, just an extreme example) the VJ hardcore wouldn't approve. I think you're take is just a tad different

from my perspective, it's more left.

Hey, Chuck!

Many of the Americans on VJ are leftist, but I don't get the same vibe from many of the immigrants who post.

That's why you're my favorite Right Wing Nut.

[Gussy 0]

I've seen some real bad posts come out of here (or from people who have been replying to other topics with political comments that had nothing to do with the topic at hand).

So here are some facts:

Obama Facts:

1) Most American's approve of Obama today - 56% approval (source: latest Marist poll)

2) A much smaller percentage disapprove - 32% (source: latest Marist poll).

Fox News Facts:

I'll give that Fox news has the best cable news numbers (fact!). Since we're talking facts here I'll leave my reason why in the speculation part.

1) Scott McClellan admitted that the white house under GW Bush fed Fox Commentators white house talking points (source: wikipedia article on fox news).

2) There have been many leaked memos from inside of Fox News. Those memos confirm that the network as a whole had an agenda, and that commentators were supposed to push specific talking points (source: wikipedia article on fox news).

Real quick, I want to point out that while Wikipedia isn't a proper source for academic purposes, I'm sure anyone actually interested in the subject will type in a couple of google keywords to see the leaked memos and McClellan interview.

Analysis & Speculation:

I think anyone would draw the logical conclusion, simply by watching, that Fox News has a political Agenda. But little more is needed than some simple research to confirm it. The memos are a dead give away, the McClellan interview adds wood to the fire, and Fox's own actions cement it.

One simple, and obvious example would be the case of Jeremy M. Glick. He was the son of a victim of 9/11. In an interview with Bill Oreilly, he expressed a view that differed from that which Fox News and the White House were pushing. Bill Oreilly attacked him for those views. The following are quotes from the interview:

"O'REILLY: That's a bunch of #######. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do. "

"O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people. "

"O'REILLY: Shut up. Shut up. "

I don't know if anyone can attribute such comments as "Journalistic Excellence". Certainly my middle school paper had better journalistic standards than that. But more importantly, what it shows is a specific interest and view point in the topic at hand. In a position of journalism, the journalist can either ask questions or moderate between opposing views. Fox News, despite its name, is for the most part not news - it's agenda driven ideology. That's fine, but lets be honest.

So, the obvious statement that comes out of this is: "Well CNBC - Keith Olbermann". And it's true, Olbermann is a partisan hack. He doesn't bring journalism - he brings a counter point to OReilly. But the thing is, when I turn on CNBC (which is almost never) - I find it contains more fact driven news than political commentary.

So what about Fox's Ratings? Looking at the state of the republican part - how is it that so many people Flock to Fox? Pure speculation here, but I think it's the same reason so many people bought guns and ammo when Obama won. They're afraid. Their ideology had almost total control of the country for eight years. That's gone now, and they're uncertain what's to come - so they're running to what they know.

My Grandma, for instance, has never owned a gun. She votes for republicans without really knowing why. She tells me "I want to buy a gun." I ask why and she says "because Obama is going to take them away." Hmm - "Why do you think that?" "Because they said so - on Fox News." She keeps Fox tuned in 24/7. And after sometime watching it with her I began to realize something: watching fox news makes her scared of the world - really scared. She knows nothing else, so she watches what she knows with even more intensity because the world as it is isn't proving to be the world as she understands it - based on what she sees on Fox news. So she watches, looking for the comfort that maybe soon the world will be as black and white as presented on Fox. There are no shades of grey.

I think this is true of a lot of people, old and young. People clinging to their guns, because they've been told someone will take them away. They're told there are only two sides to every conflict "good and evil" - "with us or against us" - "right and wrong". The infinite shades of grey fall only on a single side of the extremes of the spectrum.

And when you apply this to Fox News and its ratings, I think what we're seeing here is that farthest right of the republicans and moving more right. They're becoming more extreme in their ideology - and they're more interest in what the other extremes have to say. In short, they're watching more fox news.

The liberals and moderates on the other hand are tuning out. They're not proving to be the watch dogs over their new administration that they should be. While I personally think Obama is doing a "good job" given the cards that were dealt to him, for me he has proven to be nothing more than an acceptable politician. He's not a game changer. He has back tracked on too many issues. At least to the most hardcore of the right, GWB stuck to what he believed in. Of course the moderates abandoned him - these are the people who can see the shades of grey - they are the shades of grey.

And where does this leave us? It leaves us with democrats who aren't interested in political commentary because they believe their guy is doing good. As well, it leaves us with republicans who desire nothing more than validation of their beliefs - so they're tuning into the place where they can get that: fox news.

At the end of the day, the back and forth punditry and false journalism only serves a system of corruption for the benefit of two parties: and I bet not a single person here is really, truly, a member of those parties. The republican party is a mixture of federalists, libertarians, whigs, religious conservatives, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, people who just simply want to be able to own big guns, rich people who dont like taxes, small government people, fascists and that Pax Americana crew (aka the PNAC). You have the democrats made up of rich people who feel guilty about being rich, socialists, communists, liberals, reverse racists holding hands with dixiecrats, greenies, women who don't shave their legs, pot heads (they don't count as they always forget to vote), the "copyright should be forever" hollywood crowd, womanizers, protect the unions people, outsource to india people, personal freedoms people, and halfricrats (Joe Liberman).

I bet there isn't a single person here who would would him or herself with all of the characteristics of either of the parties. So why defend the machines that keep all of these groups connected into two bi-polar parties? Certainly it has to be pretty patently obvious for everyone to see the conflicting plurality of the parties:

Republican Example: fiscal conservatives, the guys who hate paying taxes, and the Project for the New American Century. Clearly you can't conserve money, cut taxes and dominate small dictatorships that you created cause they pissed you off! Not all at the same time at least... Errm, wait, they did: they just mortgaged the country with a sub prime loan from China...

Democrat Example: I don't even know where to start with these guys. Labor comes to mind. Clinton and the rest of the dems (and the repubs too) were all over NAFTA - but somehow are convinced they're protecting unions. Yeah, what a cloudy head there: to think we can be allover free trade and globalization and then get mad when "our jobs" (as if we have some right to them!) get outsourced. Hey, I'm in tech - I know any day my job could be outsourced to India, a country that doesn't even have an H1B VISA program. How bad is that? Even if I was willing to do skilled work for peanuts in India, there's no way that country would ever allow me to do it! No problem though cause union will save me right? Oh #######, no they just supported the guy who appointed CTO who favors outsourcing to India. #######!

Do either of these parties really represent anyone? Speaking of ####### - I just realized I spent a ton of time and nobody is going to read this.

[Peikko 1,575]

My 30 second attention span can't cope with that post.

[scandal 951]

Do either of these parties really represent anyone? Speaking of ####### - I just realized I spent a ton of time and nobody is going to read this.

You're new here.

That's why we call you a n00bie

Nice try. Stick around.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Wow, where are these high-quality literate noobs coming from? They're making me look bad!

[Marilyn. 340]

Wow, where are these high-quality literate noobs coming from? They're making me look bad!

that isn't hard to do

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

I've seen some real bad posts come out of here (or from people who have been replying to other topics with political comments that had nothing to do with the topic at hand).

So here are some facts:

Obama Facts:

1) Most American's approve of Obama today - 56% approval (source: latest Marist poll)

2) A much smaller percentage disapprove - 32% (source: latest Marist poll).

Fox News Facts:

I'll give that Fox news has the best cable news numbers (fact!). Since we're talking facts here I'll leave my reason why in the speculation part.

1) Scott McClellan admitted that the white house under GW Bush fed Fox Commentators white house talking points (source: wikipedia article on fox news).

2) There have been many leaked memos from inside of Fox News. Those memos confirm that the network as a whole had an agenda, and that commentators were supposed to push specific talking points (source: wikipedia article on fox news).

Real quick, I want to point out that while Wikipedia isn't a proper source for academic purposes, I'm sure anyone actually interested in the subject will type in a couple of google keywords to see the leaked memos and McClellan interview.

Analysis & Speculation:

I think anyone would draw the logical conclusion, simply by watching, that Fox News has a political Agenda. But little more is needed than some simple research to confirm it. The memos are a dead give away, the McClellan interview adds wood to the fire, and Fox's own actions cement it.

One simple, and obvious example would be the case of Jeremy M. Glick. He was the son of a victim of 9/11. In an interview with Bill Oreilly, he expressed a view that differed from that which Fox News and the White House were pushing. Bill Oreilly attacked him for those views. The following are quotes from the interview:

"O'REILLY: That's a bunch of #######. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do. "

"O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people. "

"O'REILLY: Shut up. Shut up. "

I don't know if anyone can attribute such comments as "Journalistic Excellence". Certainly my middle school paper had better journalistic standards than that. But more importantly, what it shows is a specific interest and view point in the topic at hand. In a position of journalism, the journalist can either ask questions or moderate between opposing views. Fox News, despite its name, is for the most part not news - it's agenda driven ideology. That's fine, but lets be honest.

So, the obvious statement that comes out of this is: "Well CNBC - Keith Olbermann". And it's true, Olbermann is a partisan hack. He doesn't bring journalism - he brings a counter point to OReilly. But the thing is, when I turn on CNBC (which is almost never) - I find it contains more fact driven news than political commentary.

So what about Fox's Ratings? Looking at the state of the republican part - how is it that so many people Flock to Fox? Pure speculation here, but I think it's the same reason so many people bought guns and ammo when Obama won. They're afraid. Their ideology had almost total control of the country for eight years. That's gone now, and they're uncertain what's to come - so they're running to what they know.

My Grandma, for instance, has never owned a gun. She votes for republicans without really knowing why. She tells me "I want to buy a gun." I ask why and she says "because Obama is going to take them away." Hmm - "Why do you think that?" "Because they said so - on Fox News." She keeps Fox tuned in 24/7. And after sometime watching it with her I began to realize something: watching fox news makes her scared of the world - really scared. She knows nothing else, so she watches what she knows with even more intensity because the world as it is isn't proving to be the world as she understands it - based on what she sees on Fox news. So she watches, looking for the comfort that maybe soon the world will be as black and white as presented on Fox. There are no shades of grey.

I think this is true of a lot of people, old and young. People clinging to their guns, because they've been told someone will take them away. They're told there are only two sides to every conflict "good and evil" - "with us or against us" - "right and wrong". The infinite shades of grey fall only on a single side of the extremes of the spectrum.

And when you apply this to Fox News and its ratings, I think what we're seeing here is that farthest right of the republicans and moving more right. They're becoming more extreme in their ideology - and they're more interest in what the other extremes have to say. In short, they're watching more fox news.

The liberals and moderates on the other hand are tuning out. They're not proving to be the watch dogs over their new administration that they should be. While I personally think Obama is doing a "good job" given the cards that were dealt to him, for me he has proven to be nothing more than an acceptable politician. He's not a game changer. He has back tracked on too many issues. At least to the most hardcore of the right, GWB stuck to what he believed in. Of course the moderates abandoned him - these are the people who can see the shades of grey - they are the shades of grey.

And where does this leave us? It leaves us with democrats who aren't interested in political commentary because they believe their guy is doing good. As well, it leaves us with republicans who desire nothing more than validation of their beliefs - so they're tuning into the place where they can get that: fox news.

At the end of the day, the back and forth punditry and false journalism only serves a system of corruption for the benefit of two parties: and I bet not a single person here is really, truly, a member of those parties. The republican party is a mixture of federalists, libertarians, whigs, religious conservatives, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, people who just simply want to be able to own big guns, rich people who dont like taxes, small government people, fascists and that Pax Americana crew (aka the PNAC). You have the democrats made up of rich people who feel guilty about being rich, socialists, communists, liberals, reverse racists holding hands with dixiecrats, greenies, women who don't shave their legs, pot heads (they don't count as they always forget to vote), the "copyright should be forever" hollywood crowd, womanizers, protect the unions people, outsource to india people, personal freedoms people, and halfricrats (Joe Liberman).

I bet there isn't a single person here who would would him or herself with all of the characteristics of either of the parties. So why defend the machines that keep all of these groups connected into two bi-polar parties? Certainly it has to be pretty patently obvious for everyone to see the conflicting plurality of the parties:

Republican Example: fiscal conservatives, the guys who hate paying taxes, and the Project for the New American Century. Clearly you can't conserve money, cut taxes and dominate small dictatorships that you created cause they pissed you off! Not all at the same time at least... Errm, wait, they did: they just mortgaged the country with a sub prime loan from China...

Democrat Example: I don't even know where to start with these guys. Labor comes to mind. Clinton and the rest of the dems (and the repubs too) were all over NAFTA - but somehow are convinced they're protecting unions. Yeah, what a cloudy head there: to think we can be allover free trade and globalization and then get mad when "our jobs" (as if we have some right to them!) get outsourced. Hey, I'm in tech - I know any day my job could be outsourced to India, a country that doesn't even have an H1B VISA program. How bad is that? Even if I was willing to do skilled work for peanuts in India, there's no way that country would ever allow me to do it! No problem though cause union will save me right? Oh #######, no they just supported the guy who appointed CTO who favors outsourcing to India. #######!

Do either of these parties really represent anyone? Speaking of ####### - I just realized I spent a ton of time and nobody is going to read this.

You rock!

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

Today, News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch sat down with Fox News host Neil Cavuto for a softball interview. At one point, Cavuto asked Murdoch if he feels like Rodney Dangerfield — “not getting that respect” — even though Fox is “pretty much the envy of the world right now.” When Cavuto asked about perceptions that Fox isn’t fair and balanced, Murdoch said that those allegations were “obviously not true”:

If we weren’t fair and balanced, we wouldn’t have the number one network in news — by a very wide margin.

People believe we’re fair and balanced, and they love us.

Watch it:

There’s no proof that the American public is tuning into Fox because it genuinely believes the network is fair and balanced. After all, a 2008 poll found that just three percent of O’Reilly’s viewers identified themselves as liberal. Twenty-four percent called themselves moderates, and 66 percent said they were conservative. Similar numbers were found in the survey for Hannity’s show. Media watchdog group FAIR has called Fox “the most biased name in news,” and a Fox News vice president admitted that the network’s job was to be “the voice of opposition” to the Obama administration.

http://thinkprogress.org/

Who cares WHY it is number one? Just glad it is!!!!!!

[Heracles 417]

I've seen some real bad posts come out of here (or from people who have been replying to other topics with political comments that had nothing to do with the topic at hand).

So here are some facts:

Obama Facts:

1) Most American's approve of Obama today - 56% approval (source: latest Marist poll)

2) A much smaller percentage disapprove - 32% (source: latest Marist poll).

Much like this hey:

Bush wins by 51% (country divided)

Obama wins by 52% (country united).

[Gussy 0]

My 30 second attention span can't cope with that post.

I believe that would make you the prime demographics for cable news.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Wow, where are these high-quality literate noobs coming from? They're making me look bad!

that isn't hard to do

Ouch.

From that insult, I may never recover.

[nowhereman 1]

I've seen some real bad posts come out of here (or from people who have been replying to other topics with political comments that had nothing to do with the topic at hand).

So here are some facts:

Obama Facts:

1) Most American's approve of Obama today - 56% approval (source: latest Marist poll)

2) A much smaller percentage disapprove - 32% (source: latest Marist poll).

Much like this hey:

Bush wins by 51% (country divided)

Obama wins by 52% (country united).

Translation: When presented with actual numbers throw in some rhetoric