DescentBB

Pandora wrote:

CUDA wrote:how can journalism be legitimate when you freely admit it has an agenda.

Because - as long as journalism is made by humans - it cannot be "objective" or "without an agenda". The only honest way is to make your particular viewpoint apparent. Then viewers can put your news into perspective. If an outlets viewpoint is unknown, this is impossible.

I know what you are saying, but do you think history is a science? I think it is: you look up old facts, check old sources, prioritize validity. Joe Shmo in 1600 AD said something, but what was his position and reasons? Was he buried with lots of loot he claimed not to steal?, etc.

Why cannot news be scientific like historians are? You could write rules. Why give up? For example, as an editor: cover every protest over 1000 people. How is that biased? I really dont buy into the EVERY relative story has two sides thing. The guy in Enron had a billion of stolen money in his account, or he didn't. He was a good friend of W, or NOT.

What content GETS airtime or covered at all is harder than unbiased content, but you could make some fair guidlines for that too. It always amazes me every year that the anniversary of Hiroshima is like a tiny miscroscopic blurb in CNN, compared to like ELVIS anniversary, but traiging content can be done with guidlines. I like how BBC has the "ON THIS DAY" historical section. CNN can't be bothered to remember a week earlier.

Don't give up so easily. Otherwise we are all going to shop for 'yes men.' Even if I want to shoot the TV, I want it to tell the truth. I am not sure everyone feels that way though . . .

Ned wrote:I know what you are saying, but do you think history is a science? I think it is: you look up old facts, check old sources, prioritize validity. Joe Shmo in 1600 AD said something, but what was his position and reasons? Was he buried with lots of loot he claimed not to steal?, etc.

Why cannot news be scientific like historians are? You could write rules. Why give up? For example, as an editor: cover every protest over 1000 people. How is that biased? I really dont buy into the EVERY relative story has two sides thing. The guy in Enron had a billion of stolen money in his account, or he didn't. He was a good friend of W, or NOT.

What content GETS airtime or covered at all is harder than unbiased content, but you could make some fair guidlines for that too. It always amazes me every year that the anniversary of Hiroshima is like a tiny miscroscopic blurb in CNN, compared to like ELVIS anniversary, but traiging content can be done with guidlines. I like how BBC has the "ON THIS DAY" historical section. CNN can't be bothered to remember a week earlier.

Don't give up so easily. Otherwise we are all going to shop for 'yes men.' Even if I want to shoot the TV, I want it to tell the truth. I am not sure everyone feels that way though . . .

i've been brainstorming ideas for a reality-grounded news visualisation like that too. a logical and methodological way of showing people what is truly important, without missing anything, keeping issues grouped visually together - including the relevant history of the issue (to put it into context), showing important links (if any) between groups.
perhaps edited wiki style.

no more dogs on surfboards.

the idea for it kindof grew outof a frustration i was having when i realised that so many big issues i had heard about on the news - i had no closure for - they had simply disappeared from the news as if they only mattered for a few hours.

big meteor comming towards earth?

all cooked vegetable starches are carcenogenic?

new planet discovered?

civil unrest in some nation?

issues like this should have an APPROPRIATE response in the news - that being HUGE. i've heard more about the jackson trial, an issue that means nothing and should be (but isn't) appropriately sized as a very small issue.

Birds... I remember having this conversation before.

I pointed out that ABC's Sunday morning news program, "This Week" (with David Brinkley) ran for decades with George Will as the only conservative on a panel with three liberals. Week in and week out!

Now that's a THREE TO ONE margin... for decades on end.

By the "more this party than that party" standard, the bias is clear. And this was the most prominent of the Sunday Morning political analysis shows until Russert came along and raised the bar at MTP.


One of my favorite shows on FOX News is FOX Newswatch. Two liberal panelists and two conservative panelists, and one moderator, analyzing all of the news of the week for what sort of journalism was on display that week. Everybody gets roughly equal air time, and the most liberal panelist regularly takes slanted shots at the network on the whole... without losing his job.

You never saw George Will do that about his network employer, did you? I watched for twenty years, maybe two out of every five shows, and I never saw it.


Some of the anchors on FOX are clearly slanted. They pitch softballs to the conservative pundits and argue with the liberals. Not all of them do that, though. It annoys me as much when I see that as when I see the opposite. But every time I tune in to CNN or MSNBC to crosscheck the news, I do see the opposite. Every time! If you can't see it, then you're the pot calling the kettle black all the way through this thread!

I knew there was a liberal slant to the media more than a decade before FOX News made its first broadcast. The irony is that the liberal commentator on FOX Newswatch is my favorite panelist. I disagree with most of his opinions, but not always. Hearing him out leads me to question things more closely, and that's good. I know he won't pull his punches, even when they are aimed at his employer, and that too is good. You can't really trust companies or networks, but you can rely on individuals who do a good job.

Some of the liberals here in this thread can pamper themselves with the notion that anybody who watches FOX News must, by definition, be an idiot, but such demonization speaks volumes about them and reflects not at all on FOX viewers. You guys can set up an echo chamber and run a feedback loop if you think that's productive. ... It's a free country!


- Sirian

You never saw George Will do that about his network employer, did you? I watched for twenty years, maybe two out of every five shows, and I never saw it.

I'm sorry, I don't know George Will, I have not seen this program you speak of, I have only really been watching news the past 5 years. What I am drawing mostly from was the coverage leading up to the war. Fox became a pro-war, pro-president station to the point where it ceased to be news. It was so absolutely rediculous that I began wondering if the government controlled it.

But every time I tune in to CNN or MSNBC to crosscheck the news, I do see the opposite. Every time! If you can't see it, then you're the pot calling the kettle black all the way through this thread!

I think it's already been well established multiple times in this thread that other stations are definitely biased. I'm even open to the idea that there are more total liberal stations than conservative stations.

What I am arguing is that Fox takes this to a new level. Maybe on the other stations you do see more democrats than republicans. Maybe even if you add it all up, there are more total liberal guests in all of television. I don't really know, and I have not seen any study. I do think Fox is the most biased Ra-Ra stations of all time though. It's not just the guests. It's the way things are introduced and talked about during "news" sections. The reporters will not use neutral tones, they will inflect very intensely on things they do not like in the report and it's very clear not only how they feel but how YOU should feel. If you'd really like, I can post some clips on the net when I get my TV hooked up again to my computer. Take the same topic/report from any of the stations, and compare how they are broadcasted, the inflections they use, etc.

Some of the liberals here in this thread can pamper themselves with the notion that anybody who watches FOX News must, by definition, be an idiot, but such demonization speaks volumes about them and reflects not at all on FOX viewers.

I don't think anyone is arguing that.

I originally got into this thread when someone argued that Fox was not conservatively biased. If someone can't see that, then they truly have blinders on. These other points came up later.

I think a lot of people watch fox news the way you would watch jerry springer. They are so outragous and slanted sometimes it's just funny to watch the circle jerk, or watch some guest yell at O'Reilly (I'm still waiting for someone to throw a chair). I think there is a large portion of viewers who know it's a ratings whore but just love it anyway and kinda know what's going on -- but then there are actually people who view Fox as the only good news station, the only station with 'real news'.

I guess the contrast on the liberal stations is that the never really ask any hard questions. It is just so boring to watch, you are lulled to sleep and turn the exciting FOX back.

You guys can set up an echo chamber and run a feedback loop if you think that's productive. ... It's a free country!

What's funny is that the republicans have the best echo machine. Now let's remember I am not a democrat. I do not vote for those wussy douchebags who blew their chance to prevent the war. I am not an anybody but Bush "Pragmatist" who would vote for a candidate I don't believe in. I just think it's pretty obvious between the radio and TV stations that Republicans seem to be the most organized and best at staying on message, and with pretty much the same message. Not that democrats don't do this, just not nearly as well (obigatory Yang).

Birdseye wrote:I originally got into this thread when someone argued that Fox was not conservatively biased. If someone can't see that, then they truly have blinders on. These other points came up later.

You mean me right?

Birdseye wrote:

You never saw George Will do that about his network employer, did you? I watched for twenty years, maybe two out of every five shows, and I never saw it.

I'm sorry, I don't know George Will, I have not seen this program you speak of, I have only really been watching news the past 5 years.

You've never seen "This Week" on ABC on Sunday mornngs? Wow. George Stephanopoulis is the current host. The program was launched by David Brinkley, elder statesman of NBC news through the 60s and 70s, when he made a "shocking" leap to ABC in the early 80s. He was the host, and for the political round table (precursor to all of the current Sunday Morning politcal round tables) he was the moderator.

Anyway, the original model for the round tables is as I described it: stacked with liberals and one token conservative so they could claim to be "balanced".

Now for you to claim that FOX "takes things to a whole new level" is just nonsense. You either have not been around the block, at all, or you are wearing the same kind of blinders you accuse others of wearing.

Let's take some examples. Chris Matthews, for starters. "Let's play Hardball." Um... yeah. Chris and his wife Kathleen (a bigwig in local Washington DC news, on ABC channel 7 WJLA) are both pretty dedicated liberals. That's fine. Chris asks tough questions of both sides, most of the time. He gets guests on from both parties, most of the time. I've seen shows where the whole thing is slanted left, though. He'll softpedal the Dems and argue with the Reps. His bias will come through in the questions. It sort of depends on which day you catch him.

Larry King softpedals everybody.

Now those are the two guys opposite O'Reilly.

King is entertainment. Nothing else! If you don't ask meaningful questions of ANYbody, then it doesn't matter whether you have a bias or not. Your show doesn't do anything useful to those who want news. I used to watch King on occasion, but I get too much softpedal celebrity coverage in watching normal news to care about King's show any more. So I stopped.

Matthews... I've watching his Sunday morning talk show, too. It's only half an hour, and it runs in syndication as far as I can tell. It airs on NBC4 out out of DC and comes on after MTP, which is when I catch it. If I watch MTP on delayed broadcast at 10:30 AM Eastern, on NBC4, I may watch Matthews too.

That show follows the classic three liberals, one conservative formula, and Matthews is not always the cleanly objective moderator, so sometimes that is four vs one.

And you think FOX News carries slant "to a whole new level"? You've got to be kidding me.


You can fairly pounce on anybody who claims FOX has no slant. But then you blow it when you try to claim their slant is the worst. That only shows YOU softpedaling the slant of the bulk of the media, which is definitely AND CLEARLY just as strong.

Chris Matthews is just the first example.

MSNBC put a conservative (Scarborough) on in their 10PM time slot. He's only been there for a couple of years, though, and the rest of the network still slants so far to the left, that Scarborough alone does not weigh enough to begin to balance that seesaw. (I like Joe, mind you. I watch his show sometimes.)


Tom Brokaw's last interview with President GW Bush... I watched that all the way through. It was 50% real interview, 50% Brokaw narrative "explaining" stuff in between asking the president questions. I was very disappointed, actually. The narrative was subtly slanted, but it was definitely slanted. Tom Brokaw was one of my favorites from the mainstream media (still is, really) but having had alternative news sources in recent years, it was much easier for me to pick up on the difference between "news" and "editorial" -- and HALF HIS WORK that night was "editorial". He might disagree, but that's how I see it. And he's among the least liberally slanted high profile media guys. Dan Rather's bias was an open book by comparison. It was so bad, it more or less brought him tumbling down and ended his run at anchor with a black mark.

Birdseye wrote:What I am drawing mostly from was the coverage leading up to the war.

I'm drawing from 25 years of watching the news, reading the papers, and caring about current events.

The idea that FOX carries any form of bias "to new levels" is preposterous.


Let's take Brit Hume's show. That's one of my favorites. Brit is a conservative, but he does a great job of remaining objective as moderator. (It's a very different picture when he plays the pundit role, as he does on FOX News Sunday. Watch, leaving your own bias at the door, and you will see.)

Brit's political round table, the last third of the show, is normally two conservatives and one liberal. Occasionally, it's three conservatives, and occasionally it's one and two liberals. No doubt it is a conservative editorial segment, giving more air time to conservative views. BUT... It is following the classic mold set out by David Brinkley on the show I cited, "This Week". It's the LONE conservative version of that on air anywhere, and it's no more conservative than all the other politcal round tables have been liberal for all these years. "New heights?" You've got to be kidding me. You can't be that uninformed. I presume you are just exagerating for effect and not (until now) having anybody hold up a hand and say, "Hey, wait a minute. That't not factually correct."

Brit Hume has a one on one interview with a politically relevant figure every time his show airs. This segment runs from 0:20 after the hour to 0:30 and he does a solid job of not slanting his questions. He does at least as a good of a job in this regard as any major network anchor, including Peter Jennings (who was probably the best at it.)

Brit is the heart of FOX News. He's the elder statesman and the first big name who was big before he came to FOX. He's conservative but professional. Many of the channel's anchors fail to hold to that standard -- especially the "day time" news readers -- but the underlings and small fry at the other networks have the same problem. Campbell Brown? Andrea Mitchell? David Gregory? Barbara Walters? If you can't see the liberal slant, you really are as blind as you accuse FOX viewers of being. Bob Shefer is probably the fairest remaining major anchor. The new crop -- at FOX or anywhere else -- today's young up and comers, they all have their slants.

Birdseye wrote:Fox became a pro-war, pro-president station to the point where it ceased to be news.

Ah, I see. So if the New York Times runs SIXTY front page stories on Abu Ghraib, regurgitating the same stuff over and over, that's news? If the three major networks air 78%, 68% and 63% negative coverage of President Bush during his re-election year, that's news? But if FOX airs 65% positive coverage of the President during the same time frame, that's bias?

78, 68. 65. 63... By my count, that puts FOX in second place, right behind ABC, as the "least biased" network when it comes to presidential coverage.


You can't have it both ways, kid. Now if you want to talk about "all new heights", try investigating the network that ran 78% unfavorable coverage. Do you even know which one it is? (Hint, it can't be FOX or ABC as I already mentioned them as attached to the lower numbers.)

Birdseye wrote:What's funny is that the republicans have the best echo machine.

More nonsense. Like the New York Times repeating the Abu Ghraib story over and over, there are left wing interests who repeat this line over and over, hoping that it will sink in to the left wing suckers who are only too happy to latch on to this talking point and absorb it without questioning it.

Well... your choice to do that, if you want.

But you are ignoring the fact that the bulk of the media is slanted left, and the bulk of the editorial rooms are slanted HARD left, starting with the New York Times.

The liberals take their massive echo chamber for granted. That's the "proper way" of things. If the conservatives now have -any- shred of the same to their name, it must be demonized and minimized. Only, that tactic isn't working in the heartland any more. It may pass muster in NYC or LA or SanFran, but it's not working in flyover country any more.


Smart people get their news from multiple sources. Too much reliance on any one source is dangerous, because it lulls you in to losing perspective between what is fact and what is slant or spin.


- Sirian

Sirian wrote:If the three major networks air 78%, 68% and 63% negative coverage of President Bush during his re-election year, that's news? But if FOX airs 65% positive coverage of the President during the same time frame, that's bias?

78, 68. 65. 63... By my count, that puts FOX in second place, right behind ABC, as the "least biased" network when it comes to presidential coverage.

Nice work with the figures, Sirian. Inverting Fox's stat to invent some sort of statistical center, as if 50% were to be strived for. "We must always balance a bad story with a good story" is not what we should be looking for as a "balanced" media. What happens when the news is mostly bad? 50% is subjective, and hardly to be used in statistical analysis.

78%, 68%, 63% and 35% provides a clearer view.

I don't really have anything to say about Fox News. As far as the liberal media is concerned, I think judging bias only in terms of right and left is short sighted. As a former descenter, I would prefer 6dof to a simple side scroller. Bias goes left, right, up, down, forward and backward. And it 3chord's like a mofo.

Democracy Now has a one hour webcast, Mon-Fri:

www.DemocracyNow.org

Vander wrote:Nice work with the figures, Sirian. Inverting Fox's stat to invent some sort of statistical center, as if 50% were to be strived for.

You can't have it both ways, Vander. Birds is loudly and repeatedly harranguing FOX News in this thread for having more Republican guests than Democrats. Only... the REPUBLICANS HAVE CONTROL OF THE EXEUCTIVE BRANCH. Therefore it is impossible to put on the President's Cabinet Member who is a Democrat. Yet Birds has no problem calling for 50% and crying foul if it isn't there (and ignoring media who lean the other way, despite there being a Republican presidency.)

You're right, 50% is not always the center. But compare to coverage of Senator Kerry from the same time frame and the statistics are damning. FOX still had positive net coverage, but the "big three" broadcast networks... ALSO had positive net coverage. FOX was positive to both candidates, while the networks picked their favorite son and softballed him over and over while criticizing Bush.


So where's the real center, there? FOX treated the two candidates more fairly. Kerry and his spokesfolk had equal access and a microphone on FOX any time they wanted one, while the broadcast bigwigs showed bald favoritism in terms of slant, slamming the president and doting on the senator.

Birds isn't even aware of this? He can spot FOX's lean a mile away but can't see the lean in the rest of the media? Or is he not watching any of these other media at all? Too busy glued to FOX? That would be irony.

I think judging bias only in terms of right and left is short sighted. As a former descenter, I would prefer 6dof to a simple side scroller. Bias goes left, right, up, down, forward and backward. And it 3chord's like a mofo.

I would tend to agree with you here. There are pro- and anti-corporate biases, Washington Insider biases, NYC "echo chamber" biases, religious biases, and more other biases than you can shake a stick at.

Buyer beware. Everybody is trying to sell you something.


- Sirian

First, I'd like to say that I haven't read about the stats talked about here, though I have seen plenty of stats like those listed. I have yet to see a comprehensive statistical analysis of the issue at hand that doesn't leave important questions unanswered or unaccounted for. This is most likely because it's not something that is easily investigated. It's a very big, very deep issue.

Sirian wrote:it is impossible to put on the President's Cabinet Member who is a Democrat. Yet Birds has no problem calling for 50% and crying foul if it isn't there

Sure, I agree with the notion that there are more Republican politicians, therefore, you'd see more Republican's on TV. That's how I think it probably currently is, but can't that be a sign of bias? I think politician appearances *should* be pretty balanced. If you have a Democrat on to demagogue the issue of the day, you should also give time to an opposing point of view. If you did this with every story, you'd end up around the 50% statistical center. Should an appearance by a Cabinet Member not be met by an opposing point of view, simply because there are no opposition Cabinet Members? I don't think so.

You're talking about two seperate issues to equate their percieved statistical center and claim "you can't have it both ways."

Positive/Negative coverage is greatly beholden to current events, while Dem/Rep appearances is more beholden to the operating procedures of the News org. Not accounting for bias, comparing the two statistically seems absurd to me. It's not a "can't have it both ways" situation, because events could very well lead to a factual statistical analysis that "has it both ways."

Anyways, I think the entire media environment is poorly serving our representative democracy. And being a true liberal, I don't have many idea's on a fix.

Hmm, this seems to be turning into a democrat vs. republican pissing match, which I didn't intend for. I don't root for the democrats, nor have I ever voted for one in a major election.

I already consider the media to be altogether very biased and not really interested in anything except entertainment. I've been there firsthand when major news stories have been reported inaccurately. I've done major interviews and been misquoted. Again, I don't think anyone here is arguing that bias doesn't exist with every network.

What compounds this issue is that I haven't really watched very much news coverage at all in the last year (TV, but I listen to a lot of radio). Most of my comments were directed at my experience leading right up to the war, and at the beginning of the war. Man, I wish I had taped TV back then. It was so bad I wondered if the government truly controlled the media. It wasn't just FOX, but they were the worst offender. Instead of taking a neutral war stance, fox was unabashadly Pro-War. That's when it stopped being news for me.

I'm not arguing for 50/50 coverage. Screw that, if I had my way it would be WAY more exposure to 3rd parties and very little coverage of the big bad boring two.


I don't see a point in arguing over the guest numbers. I did my own counts of Fox news and I heard OutFoxed's counts. I think that data on its own is enough to be outraged. If you feel similar outrage should also be directed at another network after a similar stastical sampling is made, then by all means I'm open to that point. But just because someone else is bad at guest balance, doesn't mean I think poor balance is the right way to go. Sure, the guest numbers are outragous, but it wasn't the crux of my point, which I feel can't really be made without a bunch of video tape to compare.

If you don't see the sensationalist way Fox presents its news coverage and how this really IS a different way of presenting news (and I think it's this unique presentation that results in its huge ratings), then perhaps there isn't much point to our discussion. It would take so much to 'prove' this to someone, with most of it coming in the form of video clip comparison of identical issues being reported. Anything else is an argument based on hearsay.

So I'm afraid I must withdraw, unable to prove my point to you Sirian, without some archival footage from around the beginning/leading up to the war. If you can find anything, let me know. I'd be happy to have a good discussion.

It's Sirian!!!!

Birdseye wrote:Hmm, this seems to be turning into a democrat vs. republican pissing match, which I didn't intend for.

unfortunately that's how most threads here turn into nowadays. *shrug*

Birdseye wrote:Hmm, this seems to be turning into a democrat vs. republican pissing match, which I didn't intend for. I don't root for the democrats, nor have I ever voted for one in a major election.

I do not consider your criticisms to be devoid of merit. I do believe you overreached.

I have too often been guilty of saying something too forcefully, exagerating in the moment based on emotion rather than carefully chosen adjectives. I can't be the only guy on the planet guilty of this type of error.


The thing is, there is a distinction between editorial and news. For instance, O'Reilly is -not- news, but news analysis, editorial -- interviews are not done objectively. They aren't done objectively on the editorial page of the New York Times, either, or the Wall Street Journal, or the Washington Post. Any criticism needs to account for this, and I am suspect of statistics critical of FOX unless they are detailed enough not to be distortions, for instance criticizing editorial segments or shows as if they were hard news.

FOX's premeire hard news show is The FOX Report with Shep Smith. Get a couple of VCRs together, and pick some dates at random. Tape The FOX Report, the News Hour With Lehrer, and the three major network news broadcasts, on randomly chosen nights, and compare. The criticism won't hold up!

Fox's daytime hard news, "FOX News Live" runs from 9AM Eastern to 3PM Eastern with a one hour break for their daytime talk show, "Dayside". Most of this block is supposed to be hard news, and some of the anchors are "rah rah" conservatives. It can get to be pretty bald on occasion. Some are better than others, though, and they just brought in a new guy recently, from another network, and so far I think he's done a great job at being more objective.

Brit Hume's Special Report show does hard news focused on the government and politics, mainly, but ends the show with editorial.

Most of the rest of FOX is editorial in one form or another. News analysis from pundits, or interviews with partisans, or "personal interest" stories, or tabloid junk like the latest crime drama.

FOX's best hours of hard news stand up toe to toe to anybody else's best hours of hard news. Don't let critics confuse you, and don't let your personal disagreement with the network's editorial positions blind you.


Meanwhile, it's easy to find fault. Coming up with solutions is much harder. So, Birds, here's a question for you. What's the alternative? Where are they doing news more objectively? Where is the coverage cleaner? The implication that "anything is better than FOX" doesn't fly. Point to some place specific. Give me an anchor you trust, a news hour you see as objective and practicing good journalism across the board. Fair coverage, no clear bias. Can you do that? (Seriously! So few news sources are clean these days, I'm always interested in finding new sources in which I can place some trust!)

What's the alternative? Who's got news worth watching?


- Sirian

I do believe you overreached.

I have too often been guilty of saying something too forcefully, exagerating in the moment based on emotion rather than carefully chosen adjectives. I can't be the only guy on the planet guilty of this type of error.

Yep, I probably over-reached (mainly because backing up these types of arguments needs some PhD-like studies conducted, and more than just one) with some of my statements but my core points are still as intended (by the way, you exercised a good argument tactic of the concession, something I rarely see here). Most arguments someone believes something intensely and perhaps over-states the position and then everyone focuses on that particular minor error rather than the ideas or intent of the original post.

I think the idea of trusting a specific news program or anchor is silly. To get the most viewpoints you need to watch multiple sources.

Any criticism needs to account for this, and I am suspect of statistics critical of FOX unless they are detailed enough not to be distortions, for instance criticizing editorial segments or shows as if they were hard news

statistics in news are really over-rated anyway. Much of what I see from Fox is stuff that is hard to make a stastic of, like the way the news is read, or the emotions of the reporter as they are given. My error in this thread was getting sucked into a statistical argument when that really wasn't my overall intent.

Most of this block is supposed to be hard news, and some of the anchors are "rah rah" conservatives. It can get to be pretty bald on occasion. Some are better than others, though, and they just brought in a new guy recently, from another network, and so far I think he's done a great job at being more objective

Well I'm glad you at least see this. If you look at this thread you are the ONLY conservative that admits this. It's this particular point that had me extremely miffed, that nobody conservative could admit there are a whole slew of rah rah conservative anchors. Maybe it's just that most of the time I tune in, it's unfortunate that I only see the performance of these people. I've also witnesses a live Fox interview (had a friend on there) and the questions asked were just plain rediculous.

Brit Hume's Special Report show does hard news focused on the government and politics, mainly, but ends the show with editorial.

All of the Brit Hume I've seen reeks of editorial to me. I guess my problem with Fox is that the line between editorial and objective news report is the most vague. That's the crux of my problem, I suppose.

Most of the rest of FOX is editorial in one form or another. News analysis from pundits, or interviews with partisans, or "personal interest" stories, or tabloid junk like the latest crime drama.

How much total blatant editorial do you think there is, how much total hard news, and how much blurred line editorial do you think there is (in vague percentages)?

FOX's best hours of hard news stand up toe to toe to anybody else's best hours of hard news. Don't let critics confuse you, and don't let your personal disagreement with the network's editorial positions blind you.

I think we're approaching this differently. I never compare the networks based on their best hour, more do I compare them on overall performance. It's Fox's ra-ra anchors that really get under my skin. They're on so much one would be hard-pressed to actually believe there is some kind of interesting news to watch.

I'll take your reccomendation to watch "The FOX Report with Shep Smith" and I will take Bold Deceiver's.

I don't remember Shep offhand, but I did a quick google and I recognize him by sight as a generic Fox talking head. I'll have to give him another shot though based on what you've said. I've also seen some liberal sites praise him for countering Hannity and Alan "Liberal Douche Set-up Guy to Make Democrats Look Bad" Colmes. Interesting that everything I can find on google is pointing to him having some left-leanings (conservative sites like RightNation.US seem to hate him, but of course LOVE Brit Hume). Interesting that you like him so

Bold reccomended:

Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace is, in my opinion, the best Sunday morning news program running. I also like Sunday Morning, but I don't consider that a hard news show.

The Panel: Brit Hume, Juan Williams, Mara Liason, and Bill Kristol. Great debates, every week.

Any opinions on that, Master Sirian?

Meanwhile, it's easy to find fault. Coming up with solutions is much harder. So, Birds, here's a question for you. What's the alternative?

Well I am glad you can actually find fault unlike many conservatives who just lap up FOX.

Anyway -- I would require all journalists to have their political affiliations be public knowledge and for their voting histories to also be easily accessible on a public website. I think we need to come off the idea of 'objective journalism' because it is an impossible ideal. I wouldn't have a problem with Fox news if everyone was identified properly. I think Fox has every right to broadcast what it does but I feel sometimes less educated viewers can be easily mislead by the show (its some of the best conservative propoganda out there).

When Brit Hume reports, there should be a big R next to his name.

Sure, reporters could scramble to register Independant, but their voting history could be still seen. Perhaps instead of who they are registered with, you could just see the top 1 or 2 parties they voted for and the percentage they voted. Like R 95% D5% or something.

Give me an anchor you trust, a news hour you see as objective and practicing good journalism across the board. Fair coverage, no clear bias. Can you do that?

Doesn't exist, and trusting any anchor at all is dangerous. Label the slimeballs with their proper political affiliation and I will be happy.

Birdseye wrote: (by the way, you exercised a good argument tactic of the concession, something I rarely see here).

Really? I thought the quality of debate was a bit higher than that here. ... Maybe it's not, and I'm wrongly blaming the worst offenders for a disproportionate share.

Anybody who won't concede valid points is either an extremist in denial, or a partisan hack paid to stick to his talking points no matter what. Democracy does not thrive on special interests of ANY kind having the only say.

The part of FOX news with which I am least impressed is the part that features the partisan hacks from both sides in a "fair and balanced debate". It's one set of spin vs another, and none of it is trustworthy. But that's just politics. It's on the consumer, the American voter, to have the wits to tell the difference. Some won't, but that's part of the package. As long as most at least try, we will have a Republic here.

Birdseye wrote:I think the idea of trusting a specific news program or anchor is silly. To get the most viewpoints you need to watch multiple sources.

Reconsider. By trust, I don't mean blind faith. I mean trust. I don't mean all eggs in one basket. I mean "You tune in to this source because they have something useful (likely to be honest, even if biased) to show you."

Multiple sources are worth squat if the sources are not honest. In the blogosphere in particular, it is important to weed out sources who outright distort, on far left or far right or any other special interest. ... This is the chief reason I avoid the blogosphere in general. I don't really trust any of them and don't care to spend the time to figure out who is worth trusting.

Birdseye wrote:It's this particular point that had me extremely miffed, that nobody conservative could admit there are a whole slew of rah rah conservative anchors.

There's a much larger slew of rah rah liberals in the media, and folks on your side of the argument are blind to that in even greater numbers. ... You have a valid point, but it's nowhere remotely near "FOX takes it to all new heights." On the contrary. It is just more business as usual, except leaning the other way.

The thing is, there are good journalists out there. It really -is- important to figure out who you can trust and who you cannot.

Sticking a big (R) or (D) next to the name is not a solution. Firstly, these are not one size fits all labels. I'm an R, but I've voted for Democrats and Independents and minor party candidates. The vote is the only direct say we get in how things are run. It is too precious to squander without thought. I did not sell my soul when I signed up to be a Republican, though. That's where my thinking leans, and what use hiding that or lying about it?

Labeling journalists would be the worst thing that could be done, because it would encourage laziness on the viewer's part. D people would automatically dismess R reporters, and vice versa. This only further fragments our already divided society, and to no useful purpose. Luckily, you lack the power to enforce your idea, to get it in to use. Not that you aren't a bright guy -- I know better! -- but this is still a god-awful clunker of an idea. ... Coming up with good ideas is hard. Winning support for them is even harder. But that's good! Erring on the side of caution is how societies survive.

Have some faith in the people. We do learn from our mistakes -- enough of us do. It's slow, cumbersome, wasteful, and never fast enough for an idealist, but it sure beats any results the dictators and communists are churning out.

How much total blatant editorial do you think there is, how much total hard news, and how much blurred line editorial do you think there is (in vague percentages)?

The hard news is read in headlines every half hour. There is only an hour's worth of hard news in any given day, unless it's a breaking, powerful story like a storm, war, terror attack, etc.

EDIT: Clarification: there's only an hour's worth of hard news every day, but the daytime "FOX News Live" broadcasts are supposed to be hard news. They are the same hour of content over and over, revised as news breaks during the day. The best hour of hard news is the wrap-up, though, in the evening: the FOX Report.

Hard news is also when they show events live, without comment: political speeches and news conferences are particularly useful. The "headlines" from a speech are always misleading, no matter who reports them. (This is where the network news reports are far more baldly slanted! You won't -see- it until you watch enough news to catch a bunch of speeches live, though, then later check them against the reported clips and sound bites, and SEE the distortion!)

When there is significant hard news to report, that gets reported. The rest is news analysis, including all the punditry, all the mouthpieces for the parties, etc.


Steve Harrigan is FOX's best journalist. Watch for his reports. Steve is the man.

FOX has a number of liberal analysts and pundits. My favorites are the ones who will concede valid points, the way you praised me doing. These include Marc Ginsberg, Dennis Ross, Juan Williams, Mara Liasson, Ellis Henican, Susan Estrich, and Greta van Susteren. Liberal analysts I don't like because they won't concede (or can't see) valid points scored against their viewpoint include David Corn, Geraldine Ferraro, Ellen Ratner, and Eleanor Clift. I put Bob Beckel and Alan Colmes in a separate category. These guys are pretty hard left and tend to always be involved in the "fair and balanced" debates with hard right wingers opposite them.

The following conservatives are sometimes or always openly slanted: Stuart Varney (worst offender, but he's a business guy not a mainline news anchor), Steve Doocy (I like Steve, but really, he pushes too hard -- ED is the morning star -- and NONE of the Fox and Friends morning anchors except maybe Juliet Huddy holds a candle to Katie Couric in terms of slant!), Brigette Quinn, Jon Scott, Carol Iovanna, David Asman, Rick Folbaum, Jonathan Hunt, and the one who is most often over the top is Sean Hannity. Hannity really plays cutthroat with discrediting the opposition. I hate that! I disagree with him, and roll my eyes at his remarks, more often than any other conservative on the network. But... that's their show. Hannity and Colmes is one hour of unabashed partisan debate. Tune in to that if you want to hear the latest talking points from both sides -- and see these challenged.

Reporters and anchors I trust (some of whom are conservatives, but not all) include Brit Hume, Shep Smith, Fred Barnes, Tony Snow, Jim Angle, Bret Baier, Dana Lewis, Brian Wilson, Kelly Wright, Rick Leventhal, Orlando Salinas, Mike Emanuel, and Wendell Goler. Some of the reporters and anchors who slant conservative, to greater or lesser degrees include Carl Cameron, John Gibson, John Kasich, and Neil Cavuto -- guys I like, but whose views or reports I won't trust as an "only" source.

Conservative pundits to whom I pay attention include Mansoor Ijaz, Newt Gingrich, Tom McInerney, Bob Bevalacqua (seems to be gone from FOX recently, though), David Hunt, Bill Cowan, Bill Sammon, Charles Krauthammer, Mort Kondracke and Fred Barnes, Bill Kristol, Michelle Malkin, Michael Barone, Judge Napolitano, and the crusader himself, Bill O'Reilly. Dick Morris belongs in his own category, but he is must-hear.

I needed help from the FOX bios to remember some of these names and get the spellings right. If a name is missing from the list, I may have overlooked it, or else I don't have a firm opinion of the person as a source, one way or the other.

I don't take anybody's word as gospel. There's a clear difference between the lightweights and the heavyweights, and I think it is probably the lightweights that mostly offend you. (I could be wrong.)

Any opinions on that, Master Sirian?

Chris Wallace seems reasonably objective to me. (Compare to his Sunday Morning competitors if you want to criticize him. Who is doing it better?) The panel has two consevatives and two (centrist) liberals. The total lean is slightly right, but within the mainstream. (Certainly better balanced than This Week, as I cited earlier).

You will see Brit Hume at his -most- conservative, though. He's a pundit there, not an anchor. You have to watch Brit's show to contrast his performance as an anchor against his performance when he's an analyst. Brit will get in to it with Juan, too, but Juan occasionally deserves it! I think both are fair men, overall.


- Sirian