Fox Viewers Are Dull/Borderline Mentally Deficient

[Iliad]

Attacking the viewers of the top rated cable news stations achieves nothing except for revealing your own fears and weaknesses.

Methinks this thread has tickled someone else's fears and weaknesses.

[Phatscotty]

Attacking the viewers of the top rated cable news stations achieves nothing except for revealing your own fears and weaknesses.

Methinks this thread has tickled someone else's fears and weaknesses.

Is that the guy lashing out with all the adjectives, insults, and slanders? Because if that person was not scared or weak, they would be able to bring the topic to attention without resorting to garbage.....

[notyou2]

Hit a nerve apparently.

[Symmetry]

Attacking the viewers of the top rated cable news stations achieves nothing except for revealing your own fears and weaknesses.

Methinks this thread has tickled someone else's fears and weaknesses.

Is that the guy lashing out with all the adjectives, insults, and slanders? Because if that person was not scared or weak, they would be able to bring the topic to attention without resorting to garbage.....

Phatscotty there folks, hating on adjectives.

[comic boy]

The only times I have ever watched Fox News is during trips to Thailand , I find it slightly easier to follow than the local Thai news and a tad more entertaining then documentaries largely featuring traditional Lao dance.
To be honest I was fairly shocked at first , I was simply not accustomed to such political bias in a news context , for sure the BBC has an agenda but it at least tries to maintain a reasonable balance.
I soon learned though to simply regard it satire, in that respect it has some value, pretty sad to consider it as in any way educational or informative though. To be fair there may well be liberal 'news' channels that are just as bad , I dont know.

[thegreekdog]

The only times I have ever watched Fox News is during trips to Thailand , I find it slightly easier to follow than the local Thai news and a tad more entertaining then documentaries largely featuring traditional Lao dance.
To be honest I was fairly shocked at first , I was simply not accustomed to such political bias in a news context , for sure the BBC has an agenda but it at least tries to maintain a reasonable balance.
I soon learned though to simply regard it satire, in that respect it has some value, pretty sad to consider it as in any way educational or informative though. To be fair there may well be liberal 'news' channels that are just as bad , I dont know.

The argument supports of Fox News would make is that they are biased to offset the bias of the other media networks. PS pointed to some examples in this thread and in many other threads. If you want unbiased news, it's hard to find. My rule of thumb for myself is to read at least two news sources from each side and try to stick with as much of the facts as possible.

I have also found that bias shows up mainly in what gets reported and what does not get reported. Fox may bury or not report on something that MSNBC features and vice versa. It's all very frustrating, but I can't think of a good alternative because, ultimately, these guys want to make money and they can't make money without being biased.

[Symmetry]

The only times I have ever watched Fox News is during trips to Thailand , I find it slightly easier to follow than the local Thai news and a tad more entertaining then documentaries largely featuring traditional Lao dance.
To be honest I was fairly shocked at first , I was simply not accustomed to such political bias in a news context , for sure the BBC has an agenda but it at least tries to maintain a reasonable balance.
I soon learned though to simply regard it satire, in that respect it has some value, pretty sad to consider it as in any way educational or informative though. To be fair there may well be liberal 'news' channels that are just as bad , I dont know.

The argument supports of Fox News would make is that they are biased to offset the bias of the other media networks. PS pointed to some examples in this thread and in many other threads. If you want unbiased news, it's hard to find. My rule of thumb for myself is to read at least two news sources from each side and try to stick with as much of the facts as possible.

I have also found that bias shows up mainly in what gets reported and what does not get reported. Fox may bury or not report on something that MSNBC features and vice versa. It's all very frustrating, but I can't think of a good alternative because, ultimately, these guys want to make money and they can't make money without being biased.

While I kind of agree, Fox is a pretty extreme case of media bias, specifically a deliberate media bias. I think you're right in saying that people should consult more than one media source, but the standards at Fox are pretty low.

The BBC is generally pretty good, and accusations of bias hit them pretty hard. Al Jazeera has had a really unfair rep, but do some great stuff if you want to know what's going on in the world.

I think one of the problems with Fox is that it basically assumes that bias is natural and then makes it a major part of what they do, to the point of propaganda. More reputable organisations accept that bias is natural and try to work toward eliminating it.

[Timminz]

That's the most sensible thing you've posted here, in a while.

[Symmetry]

That's the most sensible thing you've posted here, in a while.

Thank you Timminz, that was almost a compliment.

[thegreekdog]

The only times I have ever watched Fox News is during trips to Thailand , I find it slightly easier to follow than the local Thai news and a tad more entertaining then documentaries largely featuring traditional Lao dance.
To be honest I was fairly shocked at first , I was simply not accustomed to such political bias in a news context , for sure the BBC has an agenda but it at least tries to maintain a reasonable balance.
I soon learned though to simply regard it satire, in that respect it has some value, pretty sad to consider it as in any way educational or informative though. To be fair there may well be liberal 'news' channels that are just as bad , I dont know.

The argument supports of Fox News would make is that they are biased to offset the bias of the other media networks. PS pointed to some examples in this thread and in many other threads. If you want unbiased news, it's hard to find. My rule of thumb for myself is to read at least two news sources from each side and try to stick with as much of the facts as possible.

I have also found that bias shows up mainly in what gets reported and what does not get reported. Fox may bury or not report on something that MSNBC features and vice versa. It's all very frustrating, but I can't think of a good alternative because, ultimately, these guys want to make money and they can't make money without being biased.

While I kind of agree, Fox is a pretty extreme case of media bias, specifically a deliberate media bias. I think you're right in saying that people should consult more than one media source, but the standards at Fox are pretty low.

The BBC is generally pretty good, and accusations of bias hit them pretty hard. Al Jazeera has had a really unfair rep, but do some great stuff if you want to know what's going on in the world.

I think one of the problems with Fox is that it basically assumes that bias is natural and then makes it a major part of what they do, to the point of propaganda. More reputable organisations accept that bias is natural and try to work toward eliminating it.

I'm not sure what standards you are referring to. Are you referring to standards in reporting true situations and statements? Are you referring to standards in hiring reporters and anchors?

And to whom are you comparing Fox? I think that also is reflective of whether Fox has low standards.

Because I think what to report on and what not to report on has the biggest bias, that would be my measure. And because I think Fox should be compared to similarly situated networks (CNN, MSNBC), I would put Fox squarely in the middle. CNN probably has the best standards. MSNBC and Fox have the worst.

I have no point of reference for the BBC. But if we compare Fox to websites or newspapers such as WSJ or Realclearpolitics or something like that, clearly Fox's standards are low.

I guess the question for you is whether you believe that Fox has lower standards than MSNBC.

[Symmetry]

The only times I have ever watched Fox News is during trips to Thailand , I find it slightly easier to follow than the local Thai news and a tad more entertaining then documentaries largely featuring traditional Lao dance.
To be honest I was fairly shocked at first , I was simply not accustomed to such political bias in a news context , for sure the BBC has an agenda but it at least tries to maintain a reasonable balance.
I soon learned though to simply regard it satire, in that respect it has some value, pretty sad to consider it as in any way educational or informative though. To be fair there may well be liberal 'news' channels that are just as bad , I dont know.

The argument supports of Fox News would make is that they are biased to offset the bias of the other media networks. PS pointed to some examples in this thread and in many other threads. If you want unbiased news, it's hard to find. My rule of thumb for myself is to read at least two news sources from each side and try to stick with as much of the facts as possible.

I have also found that bias shows up mainly in what gets reported and what does not get reported. Fox may bury or not report on something that MSNBC features and vice versa. It's all very frustrating, but I can't think of a good alternative because, ultimately, these guys want to make money and they can't make money without being biased.

While I kind of agree, Fox is a pretty extreme case of media bias, specifically a deliberate media bias. I think you're right in saying that people should consult more than one media source, but the standards at Fox are pretty low.

The BBC is generally pretty good, and accusations of bias hit them pretty hard. Al Jazeera has had a really unfair rep, but do some great stuff if you want to know what's going on in the world.

I think one of the problems with Fox is that it basically assumes that bias is natural and then makes it a major part of what they do, to the point of propaganda. More reputable organisations accept that bias is natural and try to work toward eliminating it.

I'm not sure what standards you are referring to. Are you referring to standards in reporting true situations and statements? Are you referring to standards in hiring reporters and anchors?

And to whom are you comparing Fox? I think that also is reflective of whether Fox has low standards.

Because I think what to report on and what not to report on has the biggest bias, that would be my measure. And because I think Fox should be compared to similarly situated networks (CNN, MSNBC), I would put Fox squarely in the middle. CNN probably has the best standards. MSNBC and Fox have the worst.

I have no point of reference for the BBC. But if we compare Fox to websites or newspapers such as WSJ or Realclearpolitics or something like that, clearly Fox's standards are low.

I guess the question for you is whether you believe that Fox has lower standards than MSNBC.

I was comparing it to the BBC and Al Jazeera in my post. I don't watch MSNBC, although I've seen it. Fox, I generally consider to be a party political news channel. I've heard that MSNBC are left leaning, perhaps even strongly so, but I don't think they've gone quite so far as to have their stories directly dictated by Democrats in the way that Fox was doing during the Bush years. Plus I have a fair bit of scepticism about the way the channel operates under Murdoch.

The BBC is pretty anodyne. Very little opinion. It's not without its controversies of course- it's pretty much the biggest news broadcaster on the planet.

Al Jazeera is good for a more-non-western perspective.

[Phatscotty]

The only times I have ever watched Fox News is during trips to Thailand , I find it slightly easier to follow than the local Thai news and a tad more entertaining then documentaries largely featuring traditional Lao dance.
To be honest I was fairly shocked at first , I was simply not accustomed to such political bias in a news context , for sure the BBC has an agenda but it at least tries to maintain a reasonable balance.
I soon learned though to simply regard it satire, in that respect it has some value, pretty sad to consider it as in any way educational or informative though. To be fair there may well be liberal 'news' channels that are just as bad , I dont know.

The argument supports of Fox News would make is that they are biased to offset the bias of the other media networks. PS pointed to some examples in this thread and in many other threads. If you want unbiased news, it's hard to find. My rule of thumb for myself is to read at least two news sources from each side and try to stick with as much of the facts as possible.

I have also found that bias shows up mainly in what gets reported and what does not get reported. Fox may bury or not report on something that MSNBC features and vice versa. It's all very frustrating, but I can't think of a good alternative because, ultimately, these guys want to make money and they can't make money without being biased.

While I kind of agree, Fox is a pretty extreme case of media bias, specifically a deliberate media bias. I think you're right in saying that people should consult more than one media source, but the standards at Fox are pretty low.

The BBC is generally pretty good, and accusations of bias hit them pretty hard. Al Jazeera has had a really unfair rep, but do some great stuff if you want to know what's going on in the world.

I think one of the problems with Fox is that it basically assumes that bias is natural and then makes it a major part of what they do, to the point of propaganda. More reputable organisations accept that bias is natural and try to work toward eliminating it.

Why does Fox possess so much gravity with yall though? They stand alone in Conservative cable news, or even news period. ALL the rest of the news stations and shows are FAR left to center-left.....

Without FOX, that's all we would have is Leftist news media

[Phatscotty]

The only times I have ever watched Fox News is during trips to Thailand , I find it slightly easier to follow than the local Thai news and a tad more entertaining then documentaries largely featuring traditional Lao dance.
To be honest I was fairly shocked at first , I was simply not accustomed to such political bias in a news context , for sure the BBC has an agenda but it at least tries to maintain a reasonable balance.
I soon learned though to simply regard it satire, in that respect it has some value, pretty sad to consider it as in any way educational or informative though. To be fair there may well be liberal 'news' channels that are just as bad , I dont know.

The argument supports of Fox News would make is that they are biased to offset the bias of the other media networks. PS pointed to some examples in this thread and in many other threads. If you want unbiased news, it's hard to find. My rule of thumb for myself is to read at least two news sources from each side and try to stick with as much of the facts as possible.

I have also found that bias shows up mainly in what gets reported and what does not get reported. Fox may bury or not report on something that MSNBC features and vice versa. It's all very frustrating, but I can't think of a good alternative because, ultimately, these guys want to make money and they can't make money without being biased.

While I kind of agree, Fox is a pretty extreme case of media bias, specifically a deliberate media bias. I think you're right in saying that people should consult more than one media source, but the standards at Fox are pretty low.

The BBC is generally pretty good, and accusations of bias hit them pretty hard. Al Jazeera has had a really unfair rep, but do some great stuff if you want to know what's going on in the world.

I think one of the problems with Fox is that it basically assumes that bias is natural and then makes it a major part of what they do, to the point of propaganda. More reputable organisations accept that bias is natural and try to work toward eliminating it.

I'm not sure what standards you are referring to. Are you referring to standards in reporting true situations and statements? Are you referring to standards in hiring reporters and anchors?

And to whom are you comparing Fox? I think that also is reflective of whether Fox has low standards.

Because I think what to report on and what not to report on has the biggest bias, that would be my measure. And because I think Fox should be compared to similarly situated networks (CNN, MSNBC), I would put Fox squarely in the middle. CNN probably has the best standards. MSNBC and Fox have the worst.

I have no point of reference for the BBC. But if we compare Fox to websites or newspapers such as WSJ or Realclearpolitics or something like that, clearly Fox's standards are low.

I guess the question for you is whether you believe that Fox has lower standards than MSNBC.

I was comparing it to the BBC and Al Jazeera in my post. I don't watch MSNBC, although I've seen it. Fox, I generally consider to be a party political news channel. I've heard that MSNBC are left leaning, perhaps even strongly so, but I don't think they've gone quite so far as to have their stories directly dictated by Democrats in the way that Fox was doing during the Bush years. Plus I have a fair bit of scepticism about the way the channel operates under Murdoch.

The BBC is pretty anodyne. Very little opinion. It's not without its controversies of course- it's pretty much the biggest news broadcaster on the planet.

Al Jazeera is good for a more-non-western perspective.

You don't think MSNBC has their stories directly dictated by Democrats huh? That's funny, because the hosts of MSNBC just met with President Obama at the White House last week..... I'm not quite sure you know what you are talking about

MSNBC Hosts Spotted Visiting Obama White House

On Tuesday afternoon, four of MSNBC’s primetime hosts were seen entering the West Wing for a meeting with President Obama. Huffington Post reporter Jennifer Bendery tweeted that she saw Schultz’s colleagues Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell, and Al Sharpton all entering the White House. Maddow reportedly joked that she was there for a “hippie cabal."

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-hosts- ... ite-house/

[notyou2]

The only times I have ever watched Fox News is during trips to Thailand , I find it slightly easier to follow than the local Thai news and a tad more entertaining then documentaries largely featuring traditional Lao dance.
To be honest I was fairly shocked at first , I was simply not accustomed to such political bias in a news context , for sure the BBC has an agenda but it at least tries to maintain a reasonable balance.
I soon learned though to simply regard it satire, in that respect it has some value, pretty sad to consider it as in any way educational or informative though. To be fair there may well be liberal 'news' channels that are just as bad , I dont know.

The argument supports of Fox News would make is that they are biased to offset the bias of the other media networks. PS pointed to some examples in this thread and in many other threads. If you want unbiased news, it's hard to find. My rule of thumb for myself is to read at least two news sources from each side and try to stick with as much of the facts as possible.

I have also found that bias shows up mainly in what gets reported and what does not get reported. Fox may bury or not report on something that MSNBC features and vice versa. It's all very frustrating, but I can't think of a good alternative because, ultimately, these guys want to make money and they can't make money without being biased.

While I kind of agree, Fox is a pretty extreme case of media bias, specifically a deliberate media bias. I think you're right in saying that people should consult more than one media source, but the standards at Fox are pretty low.

The BBC is generally pretty good, and accusations of bias hit them pretty hard. Al Jazeera has had a really unfair rep, but do some great stuff if you want to know what's going on in the world.

I think one of the problems with Fox is that it basically assumes that bias is natural and then makes it a major part of what they do, to the point of propaganda. More reputable organisations accept that bias is natural and try to work toward eliminating it.

Why does Fox possess so much gravity with yall though? They stand alone in Conservative cable news, or even news period. ALL the rest of the news stations and shows are FAR left to center-left.....

Without FOX, that's all we would have is Leftist news media

I don't believe they are as left as you think they are, but I guess that's all a matter of opinion. I believe they are moderate not left, but certainly not as far left as I believe Fox is to the right. However, opinions are subjective.

Try taking in some news from non-US stations. The CBC, BBC and others come to mind.

What we need is the news as composed and read by Spock. Maybe Woody could sit in for Spock.

[Phatscotty]

The only times I have ever watched Fox News is during trips to Thailand , I find it slightly easier to follow than the local Thai news and a tad more entertaining then documentaries largely featuring traditional Lao dance.
To be honest I was fairly shocked at first , I was simply not accustomed to such political bias in a news context , for sure the BBC has an agenda but it at least tries to maintain a reasonable balance.
I soon learned though to simply regard it satire, in that respect it has some value, pretty sad to consider it as in any way educational or informative though. To be fair there may well be liberal 'news' channels that are just as bad , I dont know.

The argument supports of Fox News would make is that they are biased to offset the bias of the other media networks. PS pointed to some examples in this thread and in many other threads. If you want unbiased news, it's hard to find. My rule of thumb for myself is to read at least two news sources from each side and try to stick with as much of the facts as possible.

I have also found that bias shows up mainly in what gets reported and what does not get reported. Fox may bury or not report on something that MSNBC features and vice versa. It's all very frustrating, but I can't think of a good alternative because, ultimately, these guys want to make money and they can't make money without being biased.

While I kind of agree, Fox is a pretty extreme case of media bias, specifically a deliberate media bias. I think you're right in saying that people should consult more than one media source, but the standards at Fox are pretty low.

The BBC is generally pretty good, and accusations of bias hit them pretty hard. Al Jazeera has had a really unfair rep, but do some great stuff if you want to know what's going on in the world.

I think one of the problems with Fox is that it basically assumes that bias is natural and then makes it a major part of what they do, to the point of propaganda. More reputable organisations accept that bias is natural and try to work toward eliminating it.

Why does Fox possess so much gravity with yall though? They stand alone in Conservative cable news, or even news period. ALL the rest of the news stations and shows are FAR left to center-left.....

Without FOX, that's all we would have is Leftist news media

I don't believe they are as left as you think they are, but I guess that's all a matter of opinion. I believe they are moderate not left, but certainly not as far left as I believe Fox is to the right. However, opinions are subjective.

You believe they are moderate, while one of their anchors (lawrence Odonell) openly declared, live on air, that he is a Socialist, and proud of it? Is Al Sharpton really "moderate"? Ed Schultz? Chris "tingle up his leg for Obama" Matthews...moderate? Rachel Maddow, not left, but moderate? Not to mention, they all just met with Obama at the White House....moderate?

yer smokin crack

[notyou2]

No, you're view is abnormal. Your "left wing democrats" are right wing to the rest of the western world.

[john9blue]

didn't they do a study that showed the percentage of positive/negative stories about obama/romney was far more one-sided on msnbc than it was on fox?

the funny part was that leftists tried to pull their "reality is left-leaning" bullshit and claim that romney receiving a disproportionate amount of negative coverage was due to him being SO EVIL, and not due to bias. because that argument is totally going to convince someone that hasn't already drank their kool-aid.

edit: i did a google search and it seems this occurred in 2008 as well:

http://www.journalism.org/print/13437

[Phatscotty]

That's why just about everyone knows these constant FOX rants are hollow and based in fantasy land

[john9blue]

That's why just about everyone knows these constant FOX rants are hollow and based in fantasy land

no, fox is bullshit too. don't kid yourself. but they are not at the same level of bullshittery as some other stations.

[Phatscotty]

That's why just about everyone knows these constant FOX rants are hollow and based in fantasy land

no, fox is bullshit too. don't kid yourself. but they are not at the same level of bullshittery as some other stations.

They are all biased, I'm aware. It's not about the degree of bias, it's about those people who constantly rant on FOX for being biased when they stand by themselves as the only conservative channel in an ocean of Liberal bias dominated channels.

There is no point, except for letting the hate flow

[john9blue]

That's why just about everyone knows these constant FOX rants are hollow and based in fantasy land

no, fox is bullshit too. don't kid yourself. but they are not at the same level of bullshittery as some other stations.

They are all biased, I'm aware. It's not about the degree of bias, it's about those people who constantly rant on FOX for being biased when they stand by themselves as the only conservative channel in an ocean of Liberal bias dominated channels.

There is no point, except for letting the hate flow

this is known as liberal hypocrisy. i thought you were used to it by now.

[Phatscotty]

That's why just about everyone knows these constant FOX rants are hollow and based in fantasy land

no, fox is bullshit too. don't kid yourself. but they are not at the same level of bullshittery as some other stations.

They are all biased, I'm aware. It's not about the degree of bias, it's about those people who constantly rant on FOX for being biased when they stand by themselves as the only conservative channel in an ocean of Liberal bias dominated channels.

There is no point, except for letting the hate flow

this is known as liberal hypocrisy. i thought you were used to it by now.

I am, but I still enjoy it every single time they gimme the opportunity to point it out

[Symmetry]

That's why just about everyone knows these constant FOX rants are hollow and based in fantasy land

no, fox is bullshit too. don't kid yourself. but they are not at the same level of bullshittery as some other stations.

They are all biased, I'm aware. It's not about the degree of bias, it's about those people who constantly rant on FOX for being biased when they stand by themselves as the only conservative channel in an ocean of Liberal bias dominated channels.

There is no point, except for letting the hate flow

Unfortunately, this is largely a Fox news fantasy. In the US, Fox dominates cable news, right wing shows dominate talk radio, and the biggest newspaper- the WSJ is also conservative.

I appreciate that it might seem like conservative news sources are somehow a minority, but really it doesn't pan out if you care to look at the facts rather than what Fox News reports.

[chang50]

No, you're view is abnormal. Your "left wing democrats" are right wing to the rest of the western world.

Not that rest of the world nonesense again,this is Uhmerica, we decide what is normal because nowhere else matters don't you realise?

[Night Strike]

That's why just about everyone knows these constant FOX rants are hollow and based in fantasy land

no, fox is bullshit too. don't kid yourself. but they are not at the same level of bullshittery as some other stations.

They are all biased, I'm aware. It's not about the degree of bias, it's about those people who constantly rant on FOX for being biased when they stand by themselves as the only conservative channel in an ocean of Liberal bias dominated channels.

There is no point, except for letting the hate flow

Unfortunately, this is largely a Fox news fantasy. In the US, Fox dominates cable news, right wing shows dominate talk radio, and the biggest newspaper- the WSJ is also conservative.

I appreciate that it might seem like conservative news sources are somehow a minority, but really it doesn't pan out if you care to look at the facts rather than what Fox News reports.

Do you know WHY that's the case? Because any conservative value or position gets absolutely ridiculed or ignored in every other media source. Therefore, since those are the most prominent conservative-leaning sources in each genre, those are the sources that are currently flourishing. Every other source spends their time hating on conservatism and promoting big-government, so people who don't believe those things look for other news sources.

didn't they do a study that showed the percentage of positive/negative stories about obama/romney was far more one-sided on msnbc than it was on fox?

Precisely. During the last week of the election, MSNBC did exactly 0 positive stories about Romney and exactly 0 negative stories about Obama. You'll never see numbers like that on Fox News, yet for some reason Fox News is infinitely worse than MSNBC when it comes to bias.