The W
Views: 100033634
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
25.10.14 0801
The W - Current Events & Politics - CNN vs Fox News
This thread has 66 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1(2501 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (15 total)
Scott Summets
Sujuk








Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 3907 days
Last activity: 3876 days
#1 Posted on
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.



I'm gonna get me an oversized guitar, gain 40 pounds, and become the next D!
Promote this thread!
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 14 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on
But this is obvious, isn't it?

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



©CRZ™
Visit [slash] wrestling
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3477 days
Last activity: 3471 days
#3 Posted on
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



"HEY A**HOLE!" -Danny DeVito from Goldmember
evilwaldo
Lap cheong








Since: 7.2.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 3409 days
Last activity: 3190 days
AIM:  
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
I stopped watching news programs after 9/11 when we were subjected to watching the airplanes hit the buildings every 5 minutes.





Prime evil of Kaiju Big Battel is very mysterious and expensive doctor.
bash91
Merguez








Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 800 days
Last activity: 14 hours
#5 Posted on

    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



"Verhoeven's _Starship Troopers_: Based on the back cover of the book by Robert Heinlein."
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni








Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2989 days
Last activity: 2986 days
#6 Posted on
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.



ELECTRIC BLOOD - Get the "F" Out! part 2
THE BEST WRESTLING TAPE EVAR!!

Weekly Visitor
CajunMan
Boudin blanc
No longer registered








Since: 2.1.02
From: Give me a Title shot!

Since last post: 1101 days
Last activity: 238 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
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.



http://www.trenchwarfare.net

http://www.trenchwarfare.net
bash91
Merguez








Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 800 days
Last activity: 14 hours
#8 Posted on
    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)


"Verhoeven's _Starship Troopers_: Based on the back cover of the book by Robert Heinlein."
Scott Summets
Sujuk








Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 3907 days
Last activity: 3876 days
#9 Posted on

    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.



    Cause' here me and KG come naked, out of the side hatch, with the oils and perfumes, and incense!
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni








Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2989 days
Last activity: 2986 days
#10 Posted on
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).



ELECTRIC BLOOD - Get the Jay and Silent Bob Out!
THE BEST WRESTLING TAPE EVAR!!

Weekly Visitor
The Goon
Boudin blanc
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 15 hours
#11 Posted on
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








Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 800 days
Last activity: 14 hours
#12 Posted on

    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




"Verhoeven's _Starship Troopers_: Based on the back cover of the book by Robert Heinlein."
Socks
Landjager








Since: 25.6.02
From: Ottawa

Since last post: 823 days
Last activity: 436 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.21

    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...



I'm a lumberjack and I'm ok, I work all night and I sleep all day!

drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 34 days
Last activity: 4 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on

    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








Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 3907 days
Last activity: 3876 days
#15 Posted on

    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.



Cause' here me and KG come naked, out of the side hatch, with the oils and perfumes, and incense!

Go Norcross Blue Devils!

Go Penn Quakers!

Pages: 1Thread 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 ?
(2501 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
So in the last 4 years there has been a net 9 days added to the number of days it takes to reach tax freadom day.
The W - Current Events & Politics - CNN vs Fox NewsRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.132 seconds.