White house goes after Fox News

[lindajdunn]

Ratings prove they are entertaining. Where's the evidence that they're providing accurate information to the viewers?

I'm still waiting.

[lindajdunn]

The public’s assessment of the accuracy of news stories is now at its lowest level in more than two decades of Pew Research surveys, and Americans’ views of media bias and independence now match previous lows.

http://people-press.org/report/543/

Four-in-ten (40%) Americans cite a major cable news outlet (CNN, Fox News and MSNBC) as their main source for news about national and international affairs. As in the past, comparable percentages say they rely on CNN (22%) and Fox News (19%) while fewer (6%) say they get most of their news from MSNBC.

[Slim]

So, let's get this straight. Slim's response to numerous reports of Fox dishonesty is to say "they're #1 in the ratings". Well, that's a commitment to excellence in journalism if every I saw one!

Journalistic integrity? Hahaha. Dont think I've claimed that anywhere. What I keep saying, that you and others continue to like to ignore is that they're all somewhat biased in a particular direction. It just happens that the direction Fox is biased in is much more in line with the opinions of the majority of TV cable "news" viewers than the other more...cough, cough..."progressive" stations.

But thats fine. Keep believing that CNN and MSNBC are the true keepers of journalistic integrity. Hahaha.

[Slim]

Slim, if you think those criticisms of Fox are unfair or inaccurate and that Fox isn't a bunch of dishonest dirtbags, then you should be able to refute the allegations instead of name calling the people that make them. You can always tell when Slim has no counter argument - he starts slinging mud. He thinks it upsets people when it's just amusing.

I'm having a good time too, so I guess we're all happy...

[jessicasimpson]

It just happens that the direction Fox is biased in is much more in line with the opinions of the majority of TV cable "news" viewers than the other more...cough, cough..."progressive" stations.

If you are posting here while getting checked for a hernia, it is time to admit you have a problem

[Capt. Slo-mo]

You sit and watch in sick fascination and shake your head while the base watches it and has their warped worldview confirmed and Grannie locks the door so Obama won't be able to pull her plug while Earl gets out his sawed off rifle so he'll be ready when they arrive to try to drag him off to the FEMA camp.

See, this is the kind of left wing ultra liberal schmear-mongering that paints everyone to the west of Genghis Khan as hopelessly out of touch.

Earl will clearly be dragging out his sawed-off shotgun when the FEMA Feds step onto the porch.

[lindajdunn]

Shotgun? Shotgun.....?

Hmph!

I have you know my grandfather used a sawed off RIFLE when he shot himself. It's the same one he used for shooting squirrels.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Sawing off a rifle barrel is just plain wrong.

Not unlike Glenn Beck, who seems to be able to connect progressives and slave-owning in the same sentence.

[Gav]

I do watch CNN, and it's clearly a news organization ...

I think our definition of news organisation is going to have to be looked at. When I was on holiday last year the only English channel I could reliably get was CNN. The coverage was quite poor.

I've always been given the impression that CNN is the premier news service in America (correct me if I am wrong), but my experience was that it was very poor indeed.

Having said that, at least it's better than Fox...

Or those other crazy loons we were talking about a while back.

[I_luv_saber]

I've always been given the impression that CNN is the premier news service in America (correct me if I am wrong), but my experience that it was very poor indeed.

Yes, it is - on both counts. It's become more entertainment than actual news...

[lindajdunn]

Yes, it is - on both counts. It's become more entertainment than actual news...

Stating the obvious:

When I was a child, news was boring. Facts were presented and while videos were edited for content and news shows decided what they would and would not cover, the focus was upon who could do the best job of information gathering and get it out to the public first.

Now, it's all about money. Ratings determine advertising rates and the demographics of the audience also have an impact upon your advertising rates.

Budgets were slashed so that investigative reporting is darn near a thing of the past. At the same time, huge sums of money are paid to entertainers who can bring in the ratings.

It's advertised as news, but it's not. It's just a different type of reality show.

Big Brother: The Glen Beck edition.

[Gav]

I have to say that the obvious conclusion is that over here we're spoiled because we have BBC news. It has such a great rep. That's not true. BBC news is in steep decline in terms of content and presentation. I want news - facts, figures, reportage. What I don't want is sensationalised poorly researched trivia - which is what the service is heading for. The best news service on British TV at the moment is a combination of Channel 4 news (run by ITN) and Newsnight (if you like your comment a but more in depth. It's really a sad state of affairs.

[jeff]

I agree with the above points. CNN clearly has news but they shift a lot of emphasis to whatever is entertainment or trivial (Balloon Boy, or "MIchael Jackson is dead" for days at a time). Larry King is a perfect example of what is irritating: on one day he'll have an interview with Qaddafi, and then he'll spend the next days interviewing grade D celebrities.

FWIW, I found the BBC to be no better. Perhaps once upon a time it was the golden standard for broadcast news, but when I'm overseas and watching it (or watching BBC America) I think it's much the same. I would be irritated if I were a Briton and had to pay a mandatory fee to subsidize the Beeb for the privilege of owning a TV. Charles Moore in The Spectator has a long battle with them on this. I can't imagine that the private sector media in the UK enjoy competing with a subsidized media outlet that's so powerful.

The best news reportage is still coming from the better newspapers (say, NYT and WSJ) but are in deep financial decline. Note that while both of those papers have editorial and opinion sections, they both spend most of their paper on straight-up news. Unlike some media we've been discussing here that have nothing but opinion. Some of the news magazines are thriving, esp. The Economist which does a unique job of in-depth reporting and analysis.

If a hallmark of a functioning democracy is a well-informed population, then it indeed is a sad state of affairs, and the cutbacks to real journalism will harm us unless reversed.

[Gav]

FWIW, I found the BBC to be no better. Perhaps once upon a time it was the golden standard for broadcast news, but when I'm overseas and watching it (or watching BBC America) I think it's much the same. I would be irritated if I were a Briton and had to pay a mandatory fee to subsidize the Beeb for the privilege of owning a TV. Charles Moore in The Spectator has a long battle with them on this. I can't imagine that the private sector media in the UK enjoy competing with a subsidized media outlet that's so powerful.

Unfortunately this is complete rubbish. The decline in the BBC is being caused, in large part, to meddling from the outside; possibly helped by inertia from within. Charles Moore's opinion on this is suspect - doubly so as he writes for the Spectator which is umm fairly right-wing in its outlook (thatcherite is the term we would use over here). Don't forget that the culture in the UK is quite different to what you have over there. I am big fan of the Beeb (for various reasons) and willingly pay the license fee. The alternative is... not worth thinking about.

The private media outlets (with one exception - Sky) in the UK struggle not because they can't compete but because they churn out drivel, can't compete with Sky, and have falling ad' revenues. Sky is successful because it is backed by a huge media conglomerate. Funnily enough your Spectator is a big fan of Sky (well it was last time I checked anyway)...

Guess which news outlet in the states is backed by the conglomerate that runs Sky?

[jeff]

I don't mean to conflate the at least 3 issues: BBC in decline vs. its editorial position subsidized by a mandatory license fee (which one would expect Thatcherites, Tories, and Cameroons to legitemately resent, no?) vs. other outlets having to compete against a subsidized outlet. I see them as separate items.

Your point about concentration of media in a single set of hands (Australian or not) is absolutely to the point.

[Gav]

I don't mean to conflate the at least 3 issues: BBC in decline vs. its editorial position subsidized by a mandatory license fee (which one would expect Thatcherites, Tories, and Cameroons to legitemately resent, no?) vs. other outlets having to compete against a subsidized outlet. I see them as separate items.

Ok. There's a long-running debate over here over the Beeb and its future. I suspect Beeb funding would be an acrimonious topic within about 2 posts. It's bit like marmite.

[Slim]

So if it's so obvious to everyone that thinks they know more than those who watch Fox News that its not news, then why does Obama feel compelled to continue to try and discredit them? Why does he continue to whine?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...-is-talk-radio

Maybe he should spend a little more time on what do to in Afghanistan than worry about what Fox is saying about him. After all, its alll just lies.

Acorn, Van Jones, Bill Ayers, Cap and Trade, health care, bailouts...etc,etc...all lies.

[lindajdunn]

So if it's so obvious to everyone that thinks they know more than those who watch Fox News that its not news, then why does Obama feel compelled to continue to try and discredit them?

Because they're... you know... lies and half-truths and not pointing out that they're lies and half-truths mean they continue spreading until so many people believe them that it's the equivalent of Proctor & Gamble's President being a satan worshipper and the moon and stars on their trademark form 666 when you connect the dots.

http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/procter.asp

The only effective response to lies is truth and sometimes you have to repeat it over and over and over again because lies are often told by those who drive fast cars whereas the truth-tellers are far too frequently left to hitch rides from the Amish.

I find it ironic that Obama's image is being modified with a Hitler moustache when it's Fox that's engaging in the Big Lie tactic.

[Slim]

Because they're... you know... lies and half-truths and not pointing out that they're lies and half-truths mean they continue spreading until so many people believe them that it's the equivalent of Proctor & Gamble's President being a satan worshipper and the moon and stars on their trademark form 666 when you connect the dots.

http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/procter.asp

The only effective response to lies is truth and sometimes you have to repeat it over and over and over again because lies are often told by those who drive fast cars whereas the truth-tellers are far too frequently left to hitch rides from the Amish.

I find it ironic that Obama's image is being modified with a Hitler moustache when it's Fox that's engaging in the Big Lie tactic.

Oh. Thanks.

[Bayou Bum]

The only effective response to lies is truth and sometimes you have to repeat it over and over and over again because lies are often told by those who drive fast cars whereas the truth-tellers are far too frequently left to hitch rides from the Amish.

Thanks for the encouragement. Sometimes I get discouraged when I repeat the same truths over and over and it seems as though no one is willing to listen. I will keep trying.