The W
Views: 100924386
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
27.11.07 2108
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - CNN vs Fox News Register and log in to post!
(2071 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (15 total)
Scott Summets
Sujuk
Level: 64

Posts: 232/1008
EXP: 2155548
For next: 58561

Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 3941 days
Last activity: 3909 days
#1 Posted on 2.8.02 1321.43
Reposted on: 2.8.09 1329.07
Not that this would be surprising, but in a Government class I'm taking, when we talked about the media, we polled people on which was fair or unfair, CNN or Fox News. People who said the were Conservative said Fox is fair and CNN is baised, and people who are Liberal said CNN is fair and Fox is baised, reading the 9/11 post in here, its funny to see the same sort of opinions on this board.
Promote this thread!
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 214

Posts: 1037/16371
EXP: 144153674
For next: 1571746

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on 2.8.02 1324.24
Reposted on: 2.8.09 1329.09
But this is obvious, isn't it?

I'd put MSNBC in the conversative box as well, despite adding the big D.
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 495/1180
EXP: 2780648
For next: 89110

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3511 days
Last activity: 3505 days
#3 Posted on 2.8.02 1422.54
Reposted on: 2.8.09 1429.02
Yeah I'm not sure why many conservatives I listen to on talk radio (Michael Savage being the main one) say MSNBC is highly liberal. Personally, I've usually found them to either be very moderate or slant to the right a bit. There is no mistaking where CNN falls though, especially considering that fun and wacky southern guy that is at the helm. The only guy there (besdies the token conservative on Crossfire) who comes closest to being moderate is Larry King, and its only because he will parade all types of people on the screen and let them have their say without actualy trying to get to the bottom of anything. His show is a postmodernist's wet dream.

DMC
evilwaldo
Lap cheong
Level: 78

Posts: 461/1597
EXP: 4364371
For next: 17874

Since: 7.2.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 3443 days
Last activity: 3223 days
AIM:  
#4 Posted on 5.8.02 0902.35
Reposted on: 5.8.09 0903.12
I stopped watching news programs after 9/11 when we were subjected to watching the airplanes hit the buildings every 5 minutes.

bash91
Merguez
Level: 55

Posts: 44/711
EXP: 1301461
For next: 12737

Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 834 days
Last activity: 7 hours
#5 Posted on 5.8.02 1234.25
Reposted on: 5.8.09 1240.30

    Originally posted by CRZ
    But this is obvious, isn't it?

    I'd put MSNBC in the conversative box as well, despite adding the big D.



Actually, you'd be amazed how unobvious it is in the wonderful world of academia. I've got something like 200K of stuff on media bias saved from just one of the listservs I receive for a paper that I may write one of these days. The entire discussion can be summarized as "The media is biased in favor of the liberals/conservatives." "Oh yeah, says who?" "Says me." etc... except with a few more academic references and personal attacks thrown in for good measure.

Tim
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 394/1084
EXP: 2448870
For next: 12994

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 3023 days
Last activity: 3020 days
#6 Posted on 5.8.02 1257.13
Reposted on: 5.8.09 1259.05
And I've been trying desperately to show you all that it is not biased either way, but towards profit making. In general, it is a little bit on the conservative side, as that is the middle in this country, but it is not overtly liberal or conservative. It is interested in money making, and not stirring up trouble.
CajunMan
Boudin blanc
No longer registered
Level: 95

Posts: 685/2483
EXP: 8493182
For next: 175456

Since: 2.1.02
From: Give me a Title shot!

Since last post: 1135 days
Last activity: 272 days
#7 Posted on 5.8.02 1614.09
Reposted on: 5.8.09 1616.41
I like FOX because they get straight to the point, The guests on The Factor can get annoying at times but I give Bill some credit for telling it like it is.
bash91
Merguez
Level: 55

Posts: 45/711
EXP: 1301461
For next: 12737

Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 834 days
Last activity: 7 hours
#8 Posted on 6.8.02 0828.21
Reposted on: 6.8.09 0829.11
    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    And I've been trying desperately to show you all that it is not biased either way, but towards profit making. In general, it is a little bit on the conservative side, as that is the middle in this country, but it is not overtly liberal or conservative. It is interested in money making, and not stirring up trouble.


Actually, I think you may be a bit guilty of oversimplifying there. So, in order to combat that, I'm going to commit my own oversimplifications and then we can debate the spaces inbetween our competing oversimplifications.
I do think it would be incorrect to say that there is no bias except towards profit since even the most naive of watchers/listeners/readers can and will tell you that they think think at least some of what they see/hear/read is biased. Admittedly, their perception of bias will only kick in when their own biases are threatened, but they still see bias. As a general rule of thumb,with some testing done on this in an academic setting, national television news coverage and commentary tends to run slightly to the left of center with the notable exception of Fox News and some of MSNBC. Radio news coverage and commentary tends to run a fairly to very conservative perspective with some fairly isolated local liberal counterpoints. The national newspaper press is probably the hardest to easily oversimplify given the few newspapers that really qualify as national so I won't try except to note that both the Wall Street Journal and USA Today are considered conservative and the New York Times and Washington Post are viewed as voices of the moderate left in the academic community.

As far as the not stirring up trouble argument, I think there is an awful lot of evidence to the contrary at both the national and the local levels. After all, one of the easiest ways of making a profit is to break the story about a big juicy scandal and splash it all over the news broadcasts or the front page of the paper.

Tim

edited for spelling and grammar

(edited by bash91 on 6.8.02 0930)
Scott Summets
Sujuk
Level: 64

Posts: 243/1008
EXP: 2155548
For next: 58561

Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 3941 days
Last activity: 3909 days
#9 Posted on 6.8.02 1152.24
Reposted on: 6.8.09 1159.06

    Originally posted by bash91
      Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
      The national newspaper press is probably the hardest to easily oversimplify given the few newspapers that really qualify as national so I won't try except to note that both the Wall Street Journal and USA Today are considered conservative and the New York Times and Washington Post are viewed as voices of the moderate left in the academic community.


    Most newspapers are almost a dichotomy in their coverage of political issues, as they tend to lean right for presidential matters and lean left for issues involving Congress, local politicans, etc.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 395/1084
EXP: 2448870
For next: 12994

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 3023 days
Last activity: 3020 days
#10 Posted on 6.8.02 1416.08
Reposted on: 6.8.09 1429.10
The Scandals they cover don't ever bring about any real change. Hell, it was barely reported that the Pentagon "misplaced" some disgustingly large amount of money in the 80s. They toss out little scandals to us, and change those, but fail to address any real issues that might be scandalous (example: The administration signing into law some provision restricting off shore holding companies, despite the fact that Bush and Cheney both benefited from off shore holding companies a few years back).
The Goon
Boudin blanc
Moderator
Level: 94

Posts: 249/2432
EXP: 8233207
For next: 123481

Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
#11 Posted on 6.8.02 1512.09
Reposted on: 6.8.09 1529.02
It seems now with both of these channels, it's more about the personalities and less about the actual news.

"Look! We've got Greta Van Susteren!"
"Oh yeah, we've got Connie Chung!"

...especially with CNN and Connie Chung, wow did they have a lot of pomp and circumstance around her arrival.

I don't know...give me the BBC World news, where I don't even know any of the names of the hosts.
bash91
Merguez
Level: 55

Posts: 47/711
EXP: 1301461
For next: 12737

Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 834 days
Last activity: 7 hours
#12 Posted on 6.8.02 1915.49
Reposted on: 6.8.09 1922.40

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    The Scandals they cover don't ever bring about any real change. Hell, it was barely reported that the Pentagon "misplaced" some disgustingly large amount of money in the 80s. They toss out little scandals to us, and change those, but fail to address any real issues that might be scandalous (example: The administration signing into law some provision restricting off shore holding companies, despite the fact that Bush and Cheney both benefited from off shore holding companies a few years back).


To borrow a line from someone currently lecturing on "ethics", Bill Clinton, I guess it depends on your definition of scandal and of real change. Historically, the evidence is pretty clear that the media, particularly the newspapers, have done a good job of covering scandals and of producing lasting real change. For example, we might include "yellow journalism" of the Hearst papers changing American foreign policy or the Sinclair et.al exposes of labor conditions changing labor laws and aiding in the formation of the union system with which we are currently cursed. Moving closer to the present, I'll throw out the grandaddy of all scandals, Watergate, which fundamentally changed the American political system in a lot of ways . Perhaps we should talk about Whitewater, a media driven issue, which effectively crippled a presidency, or maybe we should talk about Harken Energy or Halliburton which threaten to do the same to this presidency. At a smaller level, I could talk about independent newspapers and radio stations banding together to force the FuCC to change their policies and actually allow community broadcasting rather than let Clear Channel and their ilk finish their task of homogenizing the American radio landscape. Or maybe we should talk about the incredible number of local stories and scandals that get exposed and produce lasting change like the construction of a new jail after the local newspaper reported on the inhumane condition in which the inmates were confined. I could go on and on, but I hope my point is clear.
Now, I don't have any problem with the argument that they, the media, could and should do more but, as I illustrated above I do have a problem with the notion that they don't do anything and don't produce lasting change. As for the current "scandal" you mention, I really fail to see what is so scandalous about obeying the law as it was then written to produce a tax advantage or about signing a bill that eliminating that practice that originated in the House and was passed by the Senate. Of course, that's probably just my biases showing.

Tim
Socks
Landjager
Level: 61

Posts: 130/888
EXP: 1782609
For next: 93998

Since: 25.6.02
From: Ottawa

Since last post: 857 days
Last activity: 470 days
#13 Posted on 6.8.02 1953.04
Reposted on: 6.8.09 1955.47

    Originally posted by The Goon
    It seems now with both of these channels, it's more about the personalities and less about the actual news.

    "Look! We've got Greta Van Susteren!"
    "Oh yeah, we've got Connie Chung!"

    ...especially with CNN and Connie Chung, wow did they have a lot of pomp and circumstance around her arrival.

    I don't know...give me the BBC World news, where I don't even know any of the names of the hosts.



I feel the same way. BBC world news is far better then anything CNN or FOX can produce. The writing is better and the hosts are less extravagent!

I can dig it...
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 116

Posts: 308/3946
EXP: 16815956
For next: 508189

Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 21 days
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on 7.8.02 2213.12
Reposted on: 7.8.09 2229.02

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    The Scandals they cover don't ever bring about any real change. Hell, it was barely reported that the Pentagon "misplaced" some disgustingly large amount of money in the 80s. They toss out little scandals to us, and change those, but fail to address any real issues that might be scandalous (example: The administration signing into law some provision restricting off shore holding companies, despite the fact that Bush and Cheney both benefited from off shore holding companies a few years back).


Well, that's how news goes. The real matters of importance are ignored, while the media tries to impress us with big shiny controversies or plagues. There aren't any more abductions this year than last, it's just that there's home movies of cute kids that got abducted. There weren't any more shark attacks last year than usual, some cute kid just got his arm bitten off and his dad ripped the arm out of the shark's cold, dead mouth (and even that story was sketchy, if not incredible).

Bash: I don't know if it's scandalous that they signed that law as much as it is squashing the scandals they committed, which although legal at the time, were really sketchy.
Scott Summets
Sujuk
Level: 64

Posts: 252/1008
EXP: 2155548
For next: 58561

Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 3941 days
Last activity: 3909 days
#15 Posted on 8.8.02 0824.04
Reposted on: 8.8.09 0829.03

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    Hell, it was barely reported that the Pentagon "misplaced" some disgustingly large amount of money in the 80s.


I'd rather the Pentagon NOT have to report all their money issues and causes to the public, as that could give away secrets and the like.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: WTC Memorial/Re-design
Next thread: Low power FM and why it won't work
Previous thread: Would you/Will you fly on 9/11 ?
(2071 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - CNN vs Fox NewsRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.267 seconds.