First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Is Fox News more corrupt than CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC,CBS, etc, and why?
6936 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Portland, OR
Online
Posted 7/18/15
They all pander vs actually reporting news.
Posted 7/18/15 , edited 7/18/15
They're very biased.

Also racist.
23025 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / Bay Area
Offline
Posted 7/18/15

PrinceJudar wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

They are all pretty terrible but at least Fox and MSNBC are honest about their partisan intentions. NPR and CNN pretend to be unbiased.


I'm siding on this statement basically. They're all a bunch of bullshit.


Dont put NPR in your statement your are making mistake with your blanket asumption
Rohzek 
15004 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 7/18/15
Not really. It's pretty obvious that Fox News has a right-leaning slant. That being said, it balances out some of the left-leaning slant on the other networks. This is not to say that having the middle ground is the best ground. On a lot of issues, being moderate cannot be justified. But at least as a collective whole, the media manages to report a certain, albeit limited, variety of views. Nevetheless, it could be a lot better.
10651 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Rabbit Horse
Offline
Posted 7/18/15 , edited 7/18/15
27824 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Ohio, USA
Offline
Posted 7/18/15
They are all equally corrupt. All these new stations care about is getting the ratings. They'll only report what they know will attract people's attention, which will tend to piss them off. (White cops killing blacks/Muslim terrorists/Gun Control/Religion and Homosexuality)
14953 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Massachusetts
Offline
Posted 7/18/15 , edited 7/18/15
The reason Fox catches so much flack is at least in part because they maintain a facade of being fair and balanced when really they're just a propaganda machine, whose liberal strawmen are there to get knocked down by the obviously superior conservative point of view. Think of it like this MSNBC is obnoxious, owned by the liberals, and clearly unfair but at least they're being honest about it.

Fox is the worst offender, but cable news itself has become thoroughly rotted to the core. They are propaganda vehicles that exist to reaffirm the worldviews of their dedicated audience. They are hate and fearmongers which help to drive the ongoing political polarization of America and none of them are worth spit. I speak no hyperbole when I say that I feel that tearing every cable news outlet in America down brick by brick would do wonders for our political discourse. Fox News is of course the one I'd start with, but the whole thing has become poisonous. Cable news outlets are not real news, comedians are the closest things we have to credible news sources in this country nowadays. This is why I no longer watch the news on tv.
10026 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 7/18/15
i'd say they are all equally corrupt. they all play on their audiences stereotypes of the other side. they all make up their own stories for their "causes". the real harsh truth here though is by this post it shows how fox news is the only propaganda machine going up against all other propaganda machines. you have a corrupt far right news station trying to battle every other news station which is corrupted far left.
5051 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Ks USA
Offline
Posted 7/18/15
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXrOqjS9ZyA

he is spot on when it comes to the news networks.
39137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 7/18/15
I'm probably in a minority here who thinks that the claim "news should avoid biases," while well intentioned, is honestly bullshit on the basis that no news can possibly avoid biases. Rather than arguing that these biases should be avoided, I'd rather argue that journalism embrace the fact news is biased, even if infinitesimally, rather than work to stamp out bias whenever possible.

First, and importantly, being biased doesn't preclude being objective and presenting partial evidence. This is the single most important point. For example, consider the government shutdown of Fall 2013 (2014?), wherein a perfectly reasonable headline might read "Republicans in Congress Caused Government to Shut Down Over Healthcare." This is an argument. First of all, a reporter trying to be "just the facts" would omit any discussion of Healthcare, would simply say Congressmen, and would identify the issue as being unable to pass the appropriation bill. This is silly--it's so watered down in context that it's failing to present information that people may find useful--which is the who and why the appropriation bill failed to pass. This involves making a thesis--at that point, the story is arguing (or at least advancing) a particular view and is biased inasmuch as it's taking a position. Stamping out biases isn't what's important; what is important is stamping out misinformation--that is, presenting evidence that is objectively contradictory to facts. However, advancing a particular thesis does not necessitate presenting wrong information; rather, an honest presentation can fail only at presenting information that is subjective, which is distinct from present wrong information.

As such, I find the whole metric of "does it tend to advance one political party or another," although well-intended, a misleading one. There's of course a need for stories to simply communicate facts as a starting point for any story--that is, the statements everyone can agree on beyond reasonable doubt. At the same time though, you're being egotistical if you honestly think you're able to make an informed decision on a handful of facts alone--there's always something you could have missed, especially if you're understanding of a story is just a "handful of facts" that journalist seemed appropriate. A journalist cannot remain unbiased and deliver all facts that may be relevant; as what facts are relevant itself could be a matter of discussion. For example, in the case of the Charleston shooting (to take a recent event), how important was the confederate flag, and what it stood for, relevant to that shooting? This is a question that probably lacks a straightforward answer; an entire thread could be spent on it. Moreover, there's subjectivity in arguing what the confederate flag does stand for. Now, that question was to be purely rhetorical--my point is, so long as you can agree that there is a discussion to be had on whether or not that flag was relevant, you've conceded to my point: presenting "just the facts" cannot be done purely objectively. Subjectivity is required, and a journalist must make a cohesive narrative of why a story happened in order to best inform audiences. In the process though, the subjectivity should not overwrite the objectivity; any argument must yield to facts.

My point is this though: because your understanding of a given story will be superficial, at least if attempting only the most objective stories, you will not make connections that are important. Unless it happens to be an area of you're particularly well-versed in, someone else will have to point out the connection first. Now, that doesn't mean you should find people to make connections for you; but rather, you will need to expose yourself to arguments and discern, for yourself, which arguments are good and which ones are bad in order to fully understand any given story in its entirety. That's the problem with the whole notion that "media should avoid biases" and using "bias" as a metric (wherein bias is almost understood as a political leaning). It's a false dilemma--the best journalism aimed at providing information to an audience that may be unaware of the narrative can exist only with bias; everything else is superficial. To tie this back to Fox News, the issue isn't that their biased; rather, the issue is that they distort information in order to make their case. But to extend their egregiousness to a more general principle ("avoid bias") just seems myopic. you cannot expose yourself a story without exposing yourself to opinions; even if the opinions you ultimately accept are those that made the best case using facts, including and especially facts that other people may have not considered relevant.

okay, time to shut up now that I've opened by damn mouth
One Punch Mod
85975 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Boston-ish
Offline
Posted 7/19/15
Closed because OP nuked.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.