Hello:

Those of you, short of tom, who watch FOX News probably don't also watch The Daily Show on Comedy Central. If that's so, I suggest you watch THIS clip. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/) It's the hard news guy, Brett Baier telling Jon Stewart about his employer... It's apparent that Baier has NO CLUE why people like me say the things we do about FOX. The guy isn't faking it either. He has NO CLUE. I'm not making fun of him, either. He's a SMART guy, but he's missing something. At least Stewart and I UNDERSTAND why you say the things you do. I don't think he does.

Do you understand WHY I say the things I do? If you answer, sure, like all liberals, you want to destroy America, then you're kind of like Bair, aren't you?

excon

Excon - you forgot to include the link.

Excon - you forgot to include the link.Hello e:

I sure did. Thanks.

excon

I'd like to see Stewart make his claims that the news Fox reports "is somewhat of a cover for a more political operation that exists underneath it,” to Shepard Smith(by far the best news anchor in the business today) or to the guy who had the show before Baier, Brit Hume .


To tell you the truth ,I turn on Baier's 'Special Report ' after the
1st 15 minutes to listen to the round table discussion .Before that I pick one of the 3 dinosaur networks to see what they lead with.
But what exactly is Stewart's complaint ? Nobody else in the Prime time hours on Fox claims to be straight up news shows .

I'd like to see Stewart make his claims that the news Fox reports "is somewhat of a cover for a more political operation that exists underneath it,” to Shepard Smith(by far the best news anchor in the business today) or to the guy who had the show before Baier, Brit Hume .


To tell you the truth ,I turn on Baier's 'Special Report ' after the
1st 15 minutes to listen to the round table discussion .Before that I pick one of the 3 dinosaur networks to see what they lead with.
But what exactly is Stewart's complaint ? Nobody else in the Prime time hours on Fox claims to be straight up news shows .


Hi Tom,

I think one of the complaints is there is no or little distinction between new and opinion. It is up to the public to discern the difference. Herein lies the problem.



Tut

But Fox makes it very clear that the opinion shows are just that.
Bret Baier is probably not their best spokesman in this case because half of his prime time show is opinionated round table discussion. But I have not seen a more straight up and entertaining news program from any other American network than the Shepard Smith's 'The Fox Report '.EVER! (and that includes years of watching American network ,BBC ,and foreign news outlets.

So 1/24th of their programming is OK. What a crappy channel.

As opposed to MSNBC that has zero unbiased news reporting ;or Jon Stewart who's audience cannot distinguish between news reporting and a comedy schtick .

or Jon Stewart who's audience cannot distinguish between news reporting and a comedy schtick .They can but they don't have to -the show is on the COMEDY CENTRAL!

This whole Fox News dementia is what's comical. Suddenly, a news channel that doesn't walk in lockstep with the rest blows the competition out of the water and you guys start having brain spasms. That's funnier than Comedy Central.

This issue people have had with Fox isn't new in case you haven't been paying attention.
Here's some reading material with the proper references to sources: Fox News Channel controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies)

Once again popularity does not equal quality.

Dan Rather.

Yup, and the Killian documents issue lead to his resignation. I see no one being fired at FNC.

For what exactly?

Start reading the thread from the top again.

For what exactly?Hello again, Steve:

For losing half your audience (http://www.politicususa.com/en/glenn-beck-ratings-drop), perhaps?

excon

Start reading the thread from the top again.

No sir, you're the prosecutor, you make the case.

Hello again, Steve:

For losing half your audience (http://www.politicususa.com/en/glenn-beck-ratings-drop), perhaps?

excon

And that would be a business decision, not a question of ethics.

While we wait for the prosecution to make it's case, this is what's it's all about, a George Soros funded entity founded on the pretense of being a media watchdog, has declared war on Fox News (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51949.html#ixzz1HuSk94W2).


The liberal group Media Matters has quietly transformed itself in preparation for what its founder, David Brock, described in an interview as an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” aimed at the Fox News Channel.

Obviously they never bought into Obama's "new era of civility" either.

They're also going after Murdoch, "the group will “focus on [News Corp. CEO Rupert] Murdoch and trying to disrupt his commercial interests — whether that be here or looking at what’s going on in London right now."

I can't wait to watch them flame out.

While we wait for the prosecution to make it's case, this is what's it's all about, a George Soros funded entity founded on the pretense of being a media watchdog, has declared war on Fox News (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51949.html#ixzz1HuSk94W2).Can you link us to the actual interview where he says "guerrilla warfare and sabotage"? Thanks.

Can you link us to the actual interview where he says "guerrilla warfare and sabotage"? Thanks.

That would be up to Politico and Media Matters, so what's your point, is Media Matters denying Politicos claims? If Politico is quoting them accurately with no objection from Media Matters, you have no point.

That would be up to Politico and Media Matters, so what's your point, is Media Matters denying Politicos claims? If Politico is quoting them accurately with no objection from Media Matters, you have no point.
Politico article is the only thing being used as evidence that he said such a thing, doesn't look right. Have you researched the veracity of their claims or quotes?

And that would be a business decision, not a question of ethics.Hello again, Steve:

I didn't say anything about ethics.. I was talking about their head being in the clouds... See my thread about the Koch brothers heads being in the stratosphere.

excon

Politico article is the only thing being used as evidence that he said such a thing, doesn't look right. Have you researched the veracity of their claims or quotes?

Have you? You're just trying to distract. If you honestly think if Politico misquoted them with those quotes that Media Matters isn't going to react, you're the one with your head in the clouds. Until they do, until they ask for a retraction I will believe Politico quoted them correctly, that they are engaging in “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” against Fox News and Rupert Murdoch. Prove me wrong.

Have you? Yea I did. I googled "David Brock" + "guerrilla warfare and sabotage" + "interview" and every single article references the Politico article verbatim. It's impossible to find this 'damning' interview anywhere. That doesn't concern you?

I didn't say anything about ethics.. I was talking about their head being in the clouds... See my thread about the Koch brothers heads being in the stratosphere.

Nope, you were offering a possible reason to fire someone.

Yea I did. I googled "David Brock" + "guerrilla warfare and sabotage" + "interview" and every single article references the Politico article verbatim. It's impossible to find this 'damning' interview anywhere. That doesn't concern you?

No. Politico is the source, why should that concern me? Brock talks to Politico, Politico reports it. That's how news works... it's called an exclusive.

And here I thought 501(C)(3) organizations were barred from partisan political activity... not that I think the IRS or the Holder Justice Dept will do anything about it.

No. Politico is the source, why should that concern me? Brock talks to Politico, Politico reports it. That's how news works...it's called an exclusive.Interesting that they had an exclusive interview and don't bother publishing the transcript like all other sites do?

Well if Fox is fair and balanced then they have nothing to worry about.

Hello again, Steve:

For losing half your audience (http://www.politicususa.com/en/glenn-beck-ratings-drop), perhaps?

excon

Doesn't surprise me that Beck ,a one trick pony,is losing audience.

Also not surprising that cable news is having the same problem as other main stream news sources. People know how to get their own news on the web ,and that is hurting both broadcast and print .
Overview | State of the Media (http://stateofthemedia.org/2011/overview-2/)

Interesting that they had an exclusive interview and don't bother publishing the transcript like all other sites do?

All other sites? LOL, you're kidding right? I don't know ANY news organization that publishes EVERY transcript of their interviews.

If a "media watchdog" isn't complaining of being misrepresented by the media, that's plenty proof that Politico was accurate.


Well if Fox is fair and balanced then they have nothing to worry about.

I think they'll welcome the war.

All other sites? LOL, you're kidding right? I don't know ANY news organization that publishes EVERY transcript of their interviews. No but if they base a sensationalistic article on it you think they would considering it's the ONLY source.

Many places do this:

Transcript of the CBC News interview with Obama - Canada - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/02/17/obama-transcript.html)
News Headlines (http://www.cnbc.com/id/42037137/Transcript_Interview_With_Prince_Alwaleed)
Transcript: TIME Interview with WikiLeaks' Julian Assange - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2034040,00.html)
Full Transcript: NPR Interview with President Bush : NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7065633)



If a "media watchdog" isn't complaining of being misrepresented by the media, that's plenty proof that Politico was accurate.

That's your yardstick? If they don't get called on it then it's true? We've come full circle, this thinking is why you defend Fox News.

No but if they base a sensationalistic article on it you think they would considering it's the ONLY source.

There is nothing "sensationalistic" about the article, especially considering Media Matters' standard of 'journalism.'


That's your yardstick? If they don't get called on it then it's true? We've come full circle, this thinking is why you defend Fox News.

Uh, yeah. What exactly are you not getting? The story is about said "media watchdog," you don't think they'd be watching a story about an interview with their own chief? LOL!

Politico is not what you would call one of those right wing web sites. Oh Media Matters made a big stink about Politico before. Why ? Because President Bush said he liked the publication.
But Media Matters get in a snit whenever a conservative voice gets a forum.They even attacked CNN for hiring RedState's Erick Erickson last year.

Media Matters exists to search the world ,uncover any snippet of what they perceive to be 'right wing bias'. Good for them. Conservatives have similar organizations like Media Research Center .

Of course the big difference is that MRC doesn't cloak itself as some kind of non-profit charity organization, ripping off the taxpayers of America like Media Matters does.
Remove their tax free status and let them do their job in the open market. They can say and do all they want to FOX if it's not on my dime .

All other sites? LOL, you're kidding right? I don't know ANY news organization that publishes EVERY transcript of their interviews.

If a "media watchdog" isn't complaining of being misrepresented by the media, that's plenty proof that Politico was accurate.




Actually, it is no proof. The absence of a certain type of evidence doesn't mean politico was accurate.

This is also related a situational fallacy of assuming the Politico article is true until someone proves it false.

Tut

Actually, it is no proof. The absence of a certain type of evidence doesn't mean politico was accurate.

This is also related a situational fallacy of assuming the Politico article is true until someone proves it false.

Tut, I don't give a rat's you know about "situational fallacies" and such, I live in the real world. In the real world if Politico is misquoting Brock, the founder of Media Matters - a "media watchdog" - Media Matters would be defending itself.

The only issue here is Needkarma's annoying habit of playing the role of arbiter of approved sources. The only evidence on the table states that MM has declared a campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” against Fox News and Rupert Murdoch. MM's body of work supports this claim.

Where is the evidence against this? Thus far there is none.

Tut, I don't give a rat's you know about "situational fallacies" and such, I live in the real world.
Hahaha... I love it when you out yourself. :)

The only issue here is Needkarma's annoying habit of playing the role of arbiter of approved sources. I was only asking for evidence of something that was posted. I often dig deeper and question articles such as these when they make outlandish claims when they are the only source. You seem to take it as a personal affront.

Hahaha...I love it when you out yourself. :)

You're a very confused man.

Tut, I don't give a rat's you know about "situational fallacies" and such, I live in the real world. In the real world if Politico is misquoting Brock, the founder of Media Matters - a "media watchdog" - Media Matters would be defending itself.

The only issue here is Needkarma's annoying habit of playing the role of arbiter of approved sources. The only evidence on the table states that MM has declared a campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” against Fox News and Rupert Murdoch. MM's body of work supports this claim.

Where is the evidence against this? Thus far there is none.


Hi Speech,


If Politico is misquoting Brock and Media Matters then Media matters would defend itself.

All I am saying is (in this or any other world) is here could be any number of reasons Media matters hasn't defended itself.

You claim that Media matters hasn't defended itself because the quotes are accurate is quite possible. But it is not evidence to support your claim.


Please expand on," MM' body of work supports this claim" I came in on the middle of the debate.

Tut

I find it hard to believe that Media Matters ,being the nit-pickers they are would shy away from taking on Politico over a misquote.

BTW , if what Politico says is true ,then Media Matters come close to criminal 'Tortious Interference' in Fox's business.
So now I call on the Holder Justice Dept to investigate that charge ,and the IRA to investigate violations of the provisions of being a charitable organization under the provisions that allow them to continue to be a 501(C)(3) organization.

You claim that Media matters hasn't defended itself because the quotes are accurate is quite possible. But it is not evidence to support your claim.

Technically, perhaps not. But realistically, absolutely. Media Matters would not as tom said, "shy away from taking on Politico over a misquote."


Please expand on," MM' body of work supports this claim" I came in on the middle of the debate.

Fox is their primary focus, anyone can research their work (http://mediamatters.org/research/).

Technically, perhaps not. But realistically, absolutely. Media Matters would not as tom said, "shy away from taking on Politico over a misquote."




I am not sure what your first sentence is saying. It doesn't seem to say anything. But then again I don't live in the real world.

Again, if you are suggesting Media Matters history is evidence for the quote being accurate then I have already covered this argument.


Tut

Let's put it this way... as I already demonstrated ,Media Matters has often called out other outlets on lesser pretext than a charge against their founder .If he is being misquoted ,I'm sure MM will make as big a case as possible . Politico as a media outlet is as credible as they come .

let's put it this way.... as I already demonstrated ,Media Matters has often called out other outlets on lesser pretext than a charge against their founder .If he is being misquoted ,I'm sure MM will make as big a case as possible . Politico as a media outlet is as credible as they come .

Hi Tom,

Based on the what you have said above Politico's claims are at best probable.

As I said before, the onus is on the person(s) who puts forward the accusations to come up with the proof. In this case it doesn't work like a court of law (innocent until proven guilty). 'Probable' still remains in the realm of theory.

If someone were top come up with some corroborating evidence then that is fine- problem solved. Until that happens it is still a theory.


Tut

Really ? How often do you read a bi-line in the print press where there is no corraborative sourcing ? Often you'll get some nonsense like "a senior adminstration official' said..... .
In this case Politico says Brock stated his plan openly in an interview ,and even showed them the planning memo.

I just checked Media Matters web site. They have done nothing regarding a denial. Now this is a web site that nit-picks to death any story in an attempt to disclose right wing bias ,and yet has said nothing about the Politico report .

Would you like to address my charge that what Media Matters is engaging in is tortious interference in FOX business ,and is also violating the tax code ?



Media Matters, Brock said, is assembling opposition research files not only on Fox’s top executives but on a series of midlevel officials. It has hired an activist who has led a successful campaign to press advertisers to avoid Glenn Beck’s show. The group is assembling a legal team to help people who have clashed with Fox to file lawsuits for defamation, invasion of privacy or other causes. And it has hired two experienced reporters, Joe Strupp and Alexander Zaitchik, to dig into Fox’s operation to help assemble a book on the network, due out in 2012 from Vintage/Anchor.


Anyway FOX cable broadcast and all cable broadcasts facve much bigger challenges than MM. They face competition from the Internet that they don't have an answer for .

Wow, the breath of research at http://mediamatters.org/ is astounding, thanks for letting me know about that site tom. It truly exposed the way Fox distorts the news. I urge everyone to check out the site and to even sign up, I am today.

Where is their denial of the Politico story ?

really ? How often do you read a bi-line in the print press where there is no corraborative sourcing ? Often you'll get some nonsense like "a senior adminstration official' said..... .
In this case Politico says Brock stated his plan openly in an interview ,and even showed them the planning memo.

I just checked Media Matters web site. They have done nothing regarding a denial. Now this is a web site that nit-picks to death any story in an attempt to disclose right wing bias ,and yet has said nothing about the Politico report .

Would you like to address my charge that what Media Matters is engaging in is tortious interference in FOX business ,and is also violating the tax code ?



Anyway FOX cable broadcast and all cable broadcasts facve much bigger challenges than MM. They face competition from the Internet that they don't have an answer for .

Hi Tom,

As far as corroborating source is concerned I realize that we get the usual line, " A senior officer said...."But I don't think it is too hard to do the research in order to verify the content of a story. The problem arises when we use just one source and say that it is reliable. No source is totally reliable. There is always the element of 'lazy journalism' on both sides of politics.

On this basis I don't see the point of you referring to only one source. No matter how reliable this source is. All sources need verification. For example, Politico says, Brock stated his plan openly... " I think you have undermined your argument in your first paragraph.

As far as lack of denial on the part of MM is concerned, my original argument still stands.

As far as "tortious interference" is concerned I don't have a comment on that because I have not looked into that particular matter. But I can if you like.

Tut

where is their denial of the Politico story ?

Hi Tom.

If there is no denial then it must be true.

You don't see a problem with that?

Tut

where is their denial of the Politico story ?Fox News has not denied any of the hundreds of exposés from Media Matters therefore all Media Matters stories are true. That's quite a track record of Fox mangling news stories to suit their conservative bias.

I just picked a video clip at random from NK's link to Media Matters.
Glen Beck says:

There is a story today out of New Hampshire, and they have the supreme court. I don't have it- shoot, I left it in the other rooms.

Obviously his first sentence is nonsensical. What he seems to be saying is that the information I have about the court case is in the other room so I will give you what I know off the top of may head.


In other words, if the information I gave you is inaccurate then this is irrelevant. "I am just putting it out there".

Tut

And ? It is no secret that Beck ,Hannity ,and O'Reilly do opinion based shows .

I've yet to hear anyone address my contention that MM violates the law in 2 separate instances.

I've yet to hear anyone address my contention that MM violates the law in 2 separate instances.Because they don't. I find it hard to believe that you know more than the Justice Department. If you do then you're wasting your life here. :D

The Holder Justice Dept would have to choose to pursue it. I think FOX should seek a law suit against them for tortious interference.

Would love to be in the room during discovery .

I think FOX should seek a law suit against them for tortious interference.Considering it has a cabal of lawyers (they went after a tiny little website (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/06/25/faux_news_parody_site_draws/) and they don't seem to be particularly too bright (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/23/nyregion/in-courtroom-laughter-at-fox-and-a-victory-for-al-franken.html)) and the immense resources of News Corp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_corp) it's a wonder they haven't done so isn't it. :rolleyes:

Never have they had evidence of direct interference in their business practice before. Brock disclosed a campaign to undermine Fox ,pressuring advertisers etc.


The other 2 instances you cite were free speech issues.

The C-3 status is a slam dunk,except we know the Obama IRS will not go after them for clear violations of their tax status.

Brock disclosed a campaign to undermine Fox ,pressuring advertisers etc.
Apparently that is not a fact. BTW people and companies try to undermine businesses everyday, make sure you get out there and post your displeasure of their practices!
OMG they are underming a business!!!!!

Tortious interference is an actionable offense in court .

Typical examples
1.Tortious interference of business.- When false claims and accusations are made against a business or an individual's reputation in order to drive business away.

2.Tortious interference of contract.- When an individual uses "tort" (a wrongful act) to come in between two parties mutual contract.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

Brock is threatening FOX by going after their advertisers . He admitted it.

Haha, they went after a tiny little website but not after a website who's sole purpose is the focus on them. It's obvious MM is doing nothing wrong - armchair lawyer is not your thing (I know 'cause I married one). :)

I think it's slam dunk . They haven't gone after MM before because MM never before declared it's sole purpose is to take down FOX .

I think it's slam dunk . They haven't gone after MM before because MM never before declared it's sole purpose is to take down FOX before.
Since MM hasn't declared that then there is no case. And just saying "my purpose is to take you down" is not actionable.

He didn't just say it . He showed Politico the internal memo . I'd tie them up in court ,get their emails and all internal correspondence in discovery. Let's see how long their resources last against News Corp .
Maybe Soros will give them another 'charitable ' contribution .

I'd tie them up in court ,get their emails and all internal correspondence in discovery. Let's see how long their resources last against News Corp . That just shows how vindinctive your ilk is. As Tut demonstrated with steve, logic plays no part in your thinking, you just want the other side to "hurt'. The world needs less people like that, wasting resources.

That just shows how vindinctive your ilk is. As Tut demonstrated with steve, logic plays no part in your thinking, you just want the other side to "hurt'. The world needs less people like that, wasting resources.

Lol ,that seems to be the sole rational existence to MM

If someone were top come up with some corroborating evidence then that is fine- problem solved. Until that happens it is still a theory.

So all news reporting is simply theoretical until someone shows the video, transcript or whatever?

I guess you're just way too smart for me, dude. I don't find it necessary to over-think and over-analyze everything. When I read an alleged quote by someone who is in the business of "watching" the media, I believe it to be true until they object. That is only logical.

That just shows how vindinctive your ilk is. As Tut demonstrated with steve, logic plays no part in your thinking, you just want the other side to "hurt'. The world needs less people like that, wasting resources.

Tut was completely illogical in my opinion, I'm the only one who has presented any real evidence (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51949.html) thus far, you two are basing your 'logic' on a lack of evidence to the contrary.

As for your absurd accusation that I 'just want the other side to "hurt,"' where's the proof?

Don't you see the important work that MM is doing with your tax dollar ? Their investigators uncovered a memo that references Obama to "socialism, liberalism, Marxism "... ooooooooohhhh!! Breaking News!!

Yep, they do fine work. I can't think of a better way to spend my tax dollars.

Yep, they do fine work. I can't think of a better way to spend my tax dollars.Hello steve:

YOUR tax dollars?? I thought right wingers believed that if you made it, it was YOURS - not the governments'. You sound like you believe they're spending YOUR money...

If that's so, can I complain about the way your church spends ITS money?? Let me know, cause I WILL.

excon

I'm all in favor of removing the tax break for churches. I think that violates the establishment clause.

When my church violates its tax status feel free to complain all you want.

Hello again, steve:

What makes you think that Media Matters broke theirs?

excon

I believe tom already answered that one.

More importantly, do we have a league yet?

I believe tom already answered that one.

More importantly, do we have a league yet?Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, I missed that part of my own stinkin thread. Getting old, you know.

Yes, we have a league. Haven't you been getting my emails? Draft is TONIGHT at 9 eastern, if I can get the time. But, I just found out we can wait till the middle of April - not that we want to, but I thought we were rushed.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, I missed that part of my own stinkin thread. Getting old, you know.

Yes, we have a league. Haven't you been getting my emails? Draft is TONIGHT at 9 eastern, if I can get the time. But, I just found out we can wait till the middle of April - not that we want to, but I thought we were rushed.

I thought it was the 30th. Either way I'll probably have to set mine to autodraft and hope for the best. Usually works well for tom. Somehow every year he gets Peyton Manning and never shows up for the draft.

Lol... It's how you rearrange the players . (about to give up one of my secrets)
Go to your team and open
Edit Pre-Draft Player Rankings
You can move them up or down depending on your preference and hope no one picks them first .
On Edit Auto strategy you can prioritize by position or stats .

I didn't select Manning last year . I moved Brees up .

I know how to rearrange the draft order, I'm just clueless about fantasy MLB. I'll learn though. :)

The trick in Rotisserie is that it's unusual that you are the best in all the stats . If you are weak in one you can either strengthen your team in that or try to get stronger in other stats.

The biggest challenge is that stats compile daily so you have to keep up moving players in and out of the lineup ;especially pitchers.

And sometimes you get a liberal on Fox that calls other libs on their BS...

Kirsten Powers Takes On Bill Maher: His Comments On Bachmann, Palin Are Degrading To ‘All Women' (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/kirsten-powers-takes-on-bill-maher-his-comments-on-bachmann-palin-are-degrading-to-all-women/)

Maher is a real class act
Report: Bill Maher doubles down ? calls Sarah Palin the ?c? word - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/20110329/pl_dailycaller/reportbillmaherdoublesdowncallssarahpalincword)

I guess you're just way too smart for me, dude. I don't find it necessary to over-think and over-analyze everything. When I read an alleged quote by someone who is in the business of "watching" the media, I believe it to be true until they object. That is only logical.


Hi Speech,

It has nothing to do with being smart or over analyzing. It is simply a question of thinking about what you say.

You don't see a problem in believing an alleged quote to be true until someone proves it false.

At best an 'alleged' means an accusation. At worst it means doubtful.
How does 'true' fit in here other than by way of belief?

Tut

It has nothing to do with being smart or over analyzing. It is simply a question of thinking about what you say.

As I asked earlier, is all news reporting merely theoretical until proven otherwise? I offered evidence, I'm waiting for someone to offer something to the contrary. NK made the claim that I only want to hurt the other side without offering any evidence, maybe he needs to think about what he says. As for me, I'll stand on the evidence presented until someone proves it wrong.

As I asked earlier, is all news reporting merely theoretical until proven otherwise?


Hi Speech,

I had a look at some more of those Fox clips via the link NK provided. So the answer to that question a resounding yes.

I go back to the Beck clip on home schooling. The way that was presented shows either he is incompetent or mischievous or both. How can he present a serious news item when he left his notes in the other room. The mischievous element comes in when he attempts to tie it together from memory. The way he presented it could definitely be classed as theory and a badly worked out one at that.

It could comment on the other clips but they follow a similar pattern. Fox, or anyone else in the media should no that when it comes to presenting new/opinion as a package it is not all right to engage in speculative theorizing and believe what they have presented is true until someone can prove it false. This is a nonsense.

This leaves the door open for anyone to engage in any type of wild speculation. And then turn around and say try and prove me wrong. Also, it doesn't work to say something along the lines of- I'm not saying it is true, all I am doing is putting it out there. This is clearly mischievous.


Tut

Beck is not in the news business . He does a commentary show in the style of a cross between a school teacher and a crazed huckster evangelical.

The truth is that MM calls out mostly the commentary personalities on FOX and they make the false claim that those personalities are distorting the news ,when in fact the shows like Beck ,Hannity ,O'Reilly never claimed to be news broadcasts .

There is nothing wrong with MM being some kind of self proclaimed 'watchdog' . They cross the line when they say their mission is to take down FOX by going after their advertisers etc. with them being a C-3 charitible foundation . They cross the line from their own opinion /education format to advocacy. They could do that as a private enterprise . As a tax payer supported charity they are in violation of the tax laws ;and probably tort laws also .

I had a look at some more of those Fox clips via the link NK provided. So the answer to that question a resounding yes.

I go back to the Beck clip on home schooling.

Tom is absolutely right and we've pointed that out every time this Fox News dementia rears its head. Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. are not 'news' shows and Fox makes no pretense of such. Commentary and opinion shows are just that, they reflect the views of the host. Even so, these shows consistently give voice to BOTH sides so what's the beef?

If you're basing your theory on Beck then we're not even on the same page. I'm discussing news, you're judging commentary.

Edit: OK, so Beck's show may be all Beck, but the rest give voice to both sides. But again, I don't watch Beck and Beck is not a 'news' show.

Hello again,

When a Vice President of Fox says THIS on a news show (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/29/fox-news-bill-sammon-obama-socialism-far-fetched_n_841829.html), is it commentary or news?

"Last year, candidate Barack Obama stood on a sidewalk in Toledo, Ohio, and first let it slip to Joe the Plumber that he wanted to 'spread the wealth around.' At that time, I have to admit that I went on TV on Fox News and publicly engaged in what I guess was some rather mischievous speculation about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism, a premise that privately I found rather far-fetched."

excon

Just read the Huffpo link . Which news show ? The cruise ship..

Media Matters obtained audio of Bill Sammon, Fox News' Washington managing editor, speaking on a Mediterranean cruise in 2009
.. or Greta (who does not do a news show... she does inteviews) ?

Hello again, tom:

He's a VICE PRESIDENT. He TELLS people what to say on their news shows, and they DID, 35 times (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103290022)before the election.

excon

So now we're pretending Huffpo is a news outlet and Fox isn't? LOL!

Seriously guys, do y'all really believe Fox News' people are the only media types that have and share opinions and present news with a bias? Really? Grow up.

I think I linked him to Fabian socialism at least that many times.
Which news shows did Sammon direct the hosts to claim Obama was a socialist ?

The results only cover primetime cable television, thus, this analysis does not cover any daytime programming. Media Matters only counted an individual's inferences once per segment; however, if the same individual expressed similar statements in a subsequent segment, that would be counted separately.

Fox doesn't air news on Prime Time .I bet Hannity called Obama a socialist at least 35 times .

Beck is not in the news business . He does a commentary show in the style of a cross between a school teacher and a crazed huckster evangelical.
.


I see... So when Beck says," A story today out of New Hampshire......." That is not news?

When O'Reilly appears on screen with the Fox News logo this is not him presenting the news?

I have changed my mind. When I said that new/opinion equals theory I was mistaken. Upon listening to the Beck tape again I think it is worse than theory it is a deliberate attempt at deception. It is a disgrace.


Tut

I see....So when Beck says," A story today out of New Hampshire......." That is not news?

When O'Reilly appears on screen with the Fox News logo this is not him presenting the news?

I have changed my mind. When I said that new/opinion equals theory I was mistaken. Upon listening to the Beck tape again I think it is worse than theory it is a deliberate attempt at deception. It is a disgrace.


Tut

You mean when Beck precedes his commentary with ," A story today out of New Hampshire......."

I assure you that when I watch the pundits on the liberal MSNBC network I understand I am watching commentary and not news. What is a disgrace is that liberals evidently can't make that distinction. What is doubley a disgrace is that network news like ABC NBC CBS are the ones that spin the news broadcasts and are considered some superior gatekeepers of the truth .

You mean when Beck precedes his commentary with ," A story today out of New Hampshire......."

I assure you that when I watch the pundits on the liberal MSNBC network I understand I am watching commentary and not news. What is a disgrace is that liberals evidently can't make that distinction. What is doubley a disgrace is that network news like ABC NBC CBS are the ones that spin the news broadcasts and are considered some superior gatekeepers of the truth .

Hi Tom,

My understanding of the definition of news is similar to what most people understand by the term 'news' i.e. the reporting of a recent event.

"A story today out of New Hampshire ... " The word "today' would qualify as recent. A supreme Court decision would also qualify as a news worthy story. Ergo, he is presenting news in the first instance.

I don't watch American T.V. so as far as the other networks are concerned I am happy to go along with what you have said. I am sure this type of news/opinion reporting is endemic. Perhaps you might look at the Australian model.

Tut

I see... So when Beck says," A story today out of New Hampshire......." That is not news?

The title of the show is "Glenn Beck." What might it be about?


When O'Reilly appears on screen with the Fox News logo this is not him presenting the news?

The title of the show is "The O'Reilly Factor." What might it be about?

Spare us your outrage, if you aren't intelligent enough to know the difference between news and commentary then you really have no business injecting your opinion on this topic.

Spare us your outrage, if you aren't intelligent enough to know the difference between news and commentary then you really have no business injecting your opinion on this topic.I guess your buddy tom ain't too bright as he shows his mock rage something a commentator said:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/2756006-post81.html

The title of the show is "Glenn Beck." What might it be about?



The title of the show is "The O'Reilly Factor." What might it be about?

Spare us your outrage, if you aren't intelligent enough to know the difference between news and commentary then you really have no business injecting your opinion on this topic.


Hi Speech,

If I'm not intelligent enough to know the difference between new and opinion then that leaves a lot of Americans (including yourself) who can't tell the difference as well. This is one of my complaints. News disguised as opinion.

Tut

If I'm not intelligent enough to know the difference between new and opinion then that leaves a lot of Americans (including yourself) who can't tell the difference as well. This is one of my complaints. News disguised as opinion.

I have no problem discerning between the two. I made the distinction for you here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/fox-news-explained-not-565167-9.html#post2756737) and many times previously. You're claiming that Beck and O'Reilly are presenting themselves as "news" shows on some extremely thin evidence, that Beck used the word "story" and Fox News, the channel O'Reilly is contracted to, displays their logo during his show. What do you want them to display to advertise their brand, MSNBC? Give it up, you have no case.

I guess your buddy tom ain't too bright as he shows his mock rage something a commentator said:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/2756006-post81.html

I really do understand that Maher doesn't do news ,he does bad comedy. I was making my own commentary on what a low life scum he is .

Perhaps you might look at the Australian model.


If I could I'd give it a shot. My guess is that even if the news is presented straight up, that decisions made about which 'news' items make the cut display the biases of the editorial board or the station management .

I have no problem discerning between the two. I made the distinction for you here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/fox-news-explained-not-565167-9.html#post2756737) and many times previously. You're claiming that Beck and O'Reilly are presenting themselves as "news" shows on some extremely thin evidence, that Beck used the word "story" and Fox News, the channel O'Reilly is contracted to, displays their logo during his show. What do you want them to display to advertise their brand, MSNBC? Give it up, you have no case.

Hi Speech,

Apparently you can discern the difference between news and opinion.

The only thing I found was you statement saying Fox presents the news with bias.

"Seriously guys, do ya'll believe Fox News' people are the only media types that have and share opinions and present news with a bias?"


On one hand you want to claim that your Media does make a distinction between news and opinion and on the other hand you also say they don't.
.

Which is it?

You're claiming that Beck and O'Reilly are presenting themselves as "news" shows on some extremely thin evidence, that Beck used the word "story" and Fox News, the channel O'Reilly is contracted to, displays their logo during his show. What do you want them to display to advertise their brand, MSNBC? Give it up, you have no case.
Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly have commentary shows whose purpose is to demonize all things liberal, if Fox News is Fair and Balanced where are the commentary shows that show the opposing view, that demonize all things conservative?

Hannity and O'Reilly have the opposing view debated on their shows. Beck is from a different planet.

Hannity and O'Reilly have the opposing view debated on their shows. LOL! One lame guest once every two months that gets cut out or shouted at does make it an equal opposing view. I asked what other SHOWS give equal time to demonizing conservative values. Shows who spend their whole time doing that, which may occasionally bring in a conservative person. The answer of course is that there are none.

So now we're pretending Huffpo is a news outlet and Fox isn't? LOL!

Seriously guys, do y'all really believe Fox News' people are the only media types that have and share opinions and present news with a bias? Really? Grow up.

I don't see how Beck can be seen as distance from the rest of the Fox people when Speechless has already said they share opinions and present the news in a certain way. Sounds like collaboration in order to present the news in a bias way.

This relates to my original complaint about the media not distinguishing between fact and opinion. Why does Speechless admit that this is a problem and then put on a insulting charade claiming the opposite? I would be interested in his reply.

Tut

LOL! One lame guest once every two months that gets cut out or shouted at does make it an equal opposing view. I asked what other SHOWS give equal time to demonizing conservative values. Shows who spend their whole time doing that, which may occasionally bring in a conservative person. The answer of course is that there are none.

You can find that at MSNBC ,CNN ,CBS ,NBC ,ABC ,PBS...

You can find that at MSNBC ,CNN ,CBS ,NBC ,ABC ,PBS .....That don't advertise that they are Fair and Balanced.
But I see that you are one of the people who try to propagate the great "liberal media" conspiracy theory. It must be tough thinking that the whole world is against you.

On one hand you want to claim that your Media does make a distinction between news and opinion and on the other hand you also say they don't.

1) Do you know the difference between an opinion show and a news show?

2) Who presents their news completely unbiased?

I don't see how Beck can be seen as distance from the rest of the Fox people when Speechless has already said they share opinions and present the news in a certain way. Sounds like collaboration in order to present the news in a bias way.

Is the NY Times only Krugman? Is the Washington Post only Krauthammer?


This relates to my original complaint about the media not distinguishing between fact and opinion. Why does Speechless admit that this is a problem and then put on a insulting charade claiming the opposite? I would be interested in his reply.

I find it comical that I make the distinction between news shows and opinion shows and also admit that no one, including Fox (and MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NY Times, WaPo, etc. ad nauseum) reports news completely free of bias and you claim I'm putting on "insulting charade." In other words, to you honesty is a charade. No wonder you're confused.

1) Do you know the difference between an opinion show and a news show?

2) Who presents their news completely unbiased?

The answer to your first question is, no I don't because I am not intelligent enough.

The answer to your second question is Australia.

Tut

The answer to your second question is Australia.


Really?

Media Bias in Australia (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-bias-in-australia/)

Australian News Commentary (http://www.australian-news.com.au/about.htm)

See comment #100

It would be strange if there weren't an inherent bias in the news content .

Really?

Media Bias in Australia (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-bias-in-australia/)

Australian News Commentary (http://www.australian-news.com.au/about.htm)

Really if you are going to do this sort of thing you should get some authoritative comment, not someone complaining about a comedian's remarks and for the record One Nation was some years ago and shook a government out of its lethergy even if the tactics were questionable.

The media is biased in Australia. If the government is conservative it is biased towards socialism, if the government is socialist it is biased towards conservatism. In other words it presents the view from the other side and doesn't swallow the government line. I don't think I have ever seen the Australian media suggest that the government is doing a good job, it just doesn't sell. We are also blessed with a certain amount of public satire which we know would be unacceptable in the northern hemisphere

A simple "yes, the media is biased in Australia" would suffice. Sneering down your nose at your friends across the pond is unnecessary.

Nothing is ever simple, remember Murdock learned his trade in Australia

We are not so biased we edit the news so that the population doesn't have a clue what is going on anywhere but at their own back door. Your politicians hold a lot of enquiries into what is going on, but it seems to me they wouldn't need to ask so many questions if they were better informed

Funny you post that after I posted on happenings in Afghanistan and we've been discussing the situation in Libya.

Not really from where I sit I see a vast difference between the depth of news coverage in our respective countries and in other places

Not really from where I sit I see a vast difference between the depth of news coverage in our respective countries and in other places

I see a vast difference in snootiness in other countries, it seems to be rampant in Australia, Canada and Europe.

Yes I think it arises from coming into contact with people from certain places