Ask Me Help Desk - FOX News explained

FOX News explained - or not.

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. 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebaines

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 .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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 .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

For what exactly?

Hello again, Steve:

For losing half your audience, perhaps?

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Start reading the thread from the top again.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

For losing half your audience, 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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

For losing half your audience, 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

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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.

Quote:

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

I think they'll welcome the war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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
News Headlines
Transcript: TIME Interview with WikiLeaks' Julian Assange - TIME
Full Transcript: NPR Interview with President Bush : NPR

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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.'

Quote:

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 .

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by TUT317

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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

You're a very confused man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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