Posted by yxibow on October 3, 2009, at 23:18:45
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see » yxibow, posted by bleauberry on October 3, 2009, at 8:01:27
> >
> > At any rate this FOX News (um... well if one doesn't know by now how 'reliable' they are... I can't go further.... it's politics.)
>
> Kind of off topic, but since you mentioned I got curious. Can you help me out? I don't watch news much. But when I do I find Fox the most reliable. Here's why. They obviously are on the "right" side, while the others networks are on the "left" side. But what I see at Fox is they always have opposing views given equal time by guests. I don't see that hardly ever on the left networks. The left anchors hardly ever give mention of opposing views, their facts are usually cherry picked or bent a bit out of shape to give a certain appearance, and their usage of opposing-view guest speakers is nill. So in terms of reliability, I think Fox gives the viewer a broader picture to form their own opinion with?They don't give "opposing" time to things, and they're very slanted towards giving the most time to right wing views and basically having "fluff" news.
And its gotten more and more the case -- they're owned by Rupert Murdoch who is a conservative Aussie. And the programming shows it. But if you want more right wing political views with distortions and less fact checking, be my guest.
But then, the nightly news has become more fluff these days.. there's nothing like (whatever you may think of him) Dan Rather or the late Walter Cronkite. The true legends of journalism are falling away.
People these days get more news from the Internet than television in general, or at least I do. I have almost never watched the evening news, except maybe at a hotel.> >
> >
> > Fox is owned by Rupert Murdock, who among people features Glenn Beck, et alia who have promoted, as a Jew myself, what I consider the truly stomach turning "death panel" idiocy and the "Hitler Obama".
>
> Glen Beck happened to be on the radio when I was taking my break at work and I heard the parts of the show you refered to above. Those things were not said. The way they were said in the quotes above have been twisted out of proportion from what was actually said, twisted into a distortion completely left field of what was actually said. I'm puzzled why people do that? I'm puzzled why people take their cues from someone else's misinterpretation but never heard the actual presentation themselves? I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I don't trust any comments about any news deliverer or talk show host unless I've heard their exact words with my own ears or eyes. The phrases quoted above have dramatic effect when shown all by themselves. But when put into context with the surrounding ten minutes prior and ten minutes after, it becomes evident they are gross misinterpretations when presented all by themselves. That's what I don't like about the "left" networks. They do that all the time?There ARE NO "left" network news. At best you could say they're centrist. As I mentioned people before... you couldn't really tell, but Rather, even a Texan, was and is probably a Democrat. But at best CBS news is centrist.
I don't care if Glenn Beck said or did not say things, he and his ilk (Rush Limbaugh, etc) created a disinformation about "death panels", a word and concept that never existed anywhere outside of the bizarre circle of "spontaneous protests" where people held what would have been considered atrocious and vile years ago, left or right, defacing a picture of Obama to look like Hitler.
But in today's world, there's no lower bounds of decency sometimes.
Yes, I believe in the freedom of the press, and the freedom to protest and express yourself, I wouldn't have the values I learned and generally view, but if you put yourself out there, you take the consequences of what you do. And there are limits, you can't yell fire in a crowded room.
If you want real quality journalism (with some of its own anti-Israel and other left-wing bias) you're going to have to read (or watch) the BBC.Or the CBC (Canada) at least at one point has reasonable journalism.
The Guardian is decidedly more left-leaning, but then as I said, newspapers in Europe are different.
Reuters and the Associated Press are reasonable conglomerated news sources.
UPI is owned by the same people who own the Washington Times, Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, or sometimes referred to as "the moonies".
There's no real quality journalism there at all. In my view.
And just like New York, there's the tabloids like The Sun, except they have the "b*mb*" and her t*ts of the day on page 3 (pardon my slur, but its true).> Maybe I'm wrong. Like I said, I don't watch news much. But when I do, I know what I see. When Fox says "fair and balanced", well, it actually is. The opposition is given fair and balanced time to make their case.
As a graduate of communications I can tell you there is no such thing as balanced news. There is always bias, but consistently conservative think tanks blame the "liberal bias" in the news, when in fact news outlets (Fox as an extreme example) have become much more conservative. The Tribune Group (if they exist as an entity I think ?) is also one.
In Europe, especially places like France, etc, you read what paper you politically subscribe to by view. If you want a stalwart center-right paper, read Le Monde. If you want a left-wing, somewhat socialist paper, you read Libération... When my french was pretty good, I could read Le Monde. Its not an easy read, it has complex language... Libération was a bit easier.
> Fox I believe has offered something to the competitive marketplace that was missing for decades. That is, the other side of the story. Usually a less biased side. Biased sure, all humans have that, but a generous proportion of time is given to debaters of both sides of any issue. I don't see that anywhere else? I don't know, I think that's a good thing? What do you think?
>
> >
> > There's no verifying of the credentials of this "Kent Holtorf", and in fact I don't even recall seeing his name in lower thirds (on the screen) by Fox.
> >
>
> I don't know who this person is or how he fits into the swine issue. I'm not even interested in that. I do know that Fox is highly aware they can easily lose their marketshare by parading scanty evidence, so I doubt that was the case?Fox doesnt care about their market share like that... They wouldn't be surviving around if they did... besides they're so financially backed by Murdoch anyhow.
The organization is a business, and the goal is profit, and no business will thrive when the product is jaded. Maybe that's why Fox marketshare has risen while the others have fallen?
>
> I usually don't believe as I wish or go by what someone else tells me. I prefer to go by the facts and judgements gathered by my own eyes and ears.
Then be my guest. I'll run screaming from them.-- tidings
poster:yxibow
thread:918589
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20091001/msgs/919627.html