Fox Viewers Are Dull/Borderline Mentally Deficient

[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.

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.

I don't think that's really the case. I think you're narrowing conservatism to equal the Republican party in the US. There are plenty of conservative views available in the media. They tend to get sidelined by Fox if they stray from partisan orthodoxy though.

Perhaps you could look at Andrew Sullivan's blog, for example, a conservative rejected and censored by Fox.

If you're looking for why sensible conservatism is silenced, look to the way that the major conservative media outlets treat those who dissent from the party line.

[Night Strike]

I don't think that's really the case. I think you're narrowing conservatism to equal the Republican party in the US. There are plenty of conservative views available in the media. They tend to get sidelined by Fox if they stray from partisan orthodoxy though.

Perhaps you could look at Andrew Sullivan's blog, for example, a conservative rejected and censored by Fox.

If you're looking for why sensible conservatism is silenced, look to the way that the major conservative media outlets treat those who dissent from the party line.

Well yes, there are plenty of conservatives and even more libertarians who don't get a voice on Fox News. But virtually none of the ones who do get a voice on Fox News would ever get a voice on places like MSNBC. MSNBC's definition of a conservative is Joe Scarborough and Meghan McCain....two people that are much more big-government Republicans than actual conservatives. I'm just surprised they still have S.E. Cupp on their channel.

[Symmetry]

I don't think that's really the case. I think you're narrowing conservatism to equal the Republican party in the US. There are plenty of conservative views available in the media. They tend to get sidelined by Fox if they stray from partisan orthodoxy though.

Perhaps you could look at Andrew Sullivan's blog, for example, a conservative rejected and censored by Fox.

If you're looking for why sensible conservatism is silenced, look to the way that the major conservative media outlets treat those who dissent from the party line.

Well yes, there are plenty of conservatives and even more libertarians who don't get a voice on Fox News. But virtually none of the ones who do get a voice on Fox News would ever get a voice on places like MSNBC. MSNBC's definition of a conservative is Joe Scarborough and Meghan McCain....two people that are much more big-government Republicans than actual conservatives. I'm just surprised they still have S.E. Cupp on their channel.

The thing is, I don't really care about MSNBC, and posing it as some kind of "they're just as bad" basically says that Fox is pretty bad when it comes to news.

A fair few posters here are demanding that I criticise MSNBC for some some sort of imaginary balance to show that Fox ain't crazy right wing.

I'm just not familiar with the MSNBC, and I've suggested a couple of other news channels that are good.

Fox just doesn't seem like a reliable news source.

[Night Strike]

The thing is, I don't really care about MSNBC, and posing it as some kind of "they're just as bad" basically says that Fox is pretty bad when it comes to news.

A fair few posters here are demanding that I criticise MSNBC for some some sort of imaginary balance to show that Fox ain't crazy right wing.

I'm just not familiar with the MSNBC, and I've suggested a couple of other news channels that are good.

Fox just doesn't seem like a reliable news source.

No, Fox News is nowhere near as bad as MSNBC. I've simply pointed out that you're going on and on about Fox News being so bad yet MSNBC is demonstrably way worse.

And appearances do not necessarily equate reality. How are they suddenly an unreliable news source when they've been the primary investigators of both Fast and Furious and the Benghazi attacks? They cover the same other news stories that other news providers cover, so there's no justification to claim that they're unreliable.

[Phatscotty]

I don't think that's really the case. I think you're narrowing conservatism to equal the Republican party in the US. There are plenty of conservative views available in the media. They tend to get sidelined by Fox if they stray from partisan orthodoxy though.

Perhaps you could look at Andrew Sullivan's blog, for example, a conservative rejected and censored by Fox.

If you're looking for why sensible conservatism is silenced, look to the way that the major conservative media outlets treat those who dissent from the party line.

Well yes, there are plenty of conservatives and even more libertarians who don't get a voice on Fox News. But virtually none of the ones who do get a voice on Fox News would ever get a voice on places like MSNBC. MSNBC's definition of a conservative is Joe Scarborough and Meghan McCain....two people that are much more big-government Republicans than actual conservatives. I'm just surprised they still have S.E. Cupp on their channel.

The thing is, I don't really care about MSNBC, and posing it as some kind of "they're just as bad" basically says that Fox is pretty bad when it comes to news.

A fair few posters here are demanding that I criticise MSNBC for some some sort of imaginary balance to show that Fox ain't crazy right wing.

Meh...we are used to you looking the other way when it's convenient for you.

FOX is on the right, EVERYBODY ELSE is on the left. It doesn't make any sense for you to go on and on and on about FOX.

It's like pointing the finger at Libertarians for our 16 trillion dollar deficit that Democrats and Republicans rang up together

[Symmetry]

The thing is, I don't really care about MSNBC, and posing it as some kind of "they're just as bad" basically says that Fox is pretty bad when it comes to news.

A fair few posters here are demanding that I criticise MSNBC for some some sort of imaginary balance to show that Fox ain't crazy right wing.

I'm just not familiar with the MSNBC, and I've suggested a couple of other news channels that are good.

Fox just doesn't seem like a reliable news source.

No, Fox News is nowhere near as bad as MSNBC. I've simply pointed out that you're going on and on about Fox News being so bad yet MSNBC is demonstrably way worse.

And appearances do not necessarily equate reality. How are they suddenly an unreliable news source when they've been the primary investigators of both Fast and Furious and the Benghazi attacks? They cover the same other news stories that other news providers cover, so there's no justification to claim that they're unreliable.

Well, it is a thread about Fox, and as I've said, I don't watch MSNBC or know much about it beyond that it seems to be trying to imitate Fox's style of non-news.

Did you watch their election coverage recently? Did they seem like they were reliably covering the news? Or did they seem like partisan hacks boostering Romney at the expense of actual facts?

i hear that Ailes has effectively told his reporters that Dick Morris and Karl Rove can no longer appear on the show without his express permission.

[Night Strike]

Well, it is a thread about Fox, and as I've said, I don't watch MSNBC or know much about it beyond that it seems to be trying to imitate Fox's style of non-news.

Did you watch their election coverage recently? Did they seem like they were reliably covering the news? Or did they seem like partisan hacks boostering Romney at the expense of actual facts?

i hear that Ailes has effectively told his reporters that Dick Morris and Karl Rove can no longer appear on the show without his express permission.

No, their news people didn't sound like partisan hacks (I watched the entire evening). Dick Morris and Karl Rove are commentators and analysts, not reporters, so their comments don't have an affect on the news coverage. Rove disagreed with some of the calls when they were made, so they aired a debate during the coverage, which is beneficial to everybody.

[AAFitz]

yo mamma so dumb she waches fox news

[AAFitz]

No, their news people didn't sound like partisan hacks (I watched the entire evening).

In all seriousness, much like a sewage plant worker who can no longer smell shit, I think perhaps your ability to spot partisan hacks is...compromised.

[Symmetry]

I don't think that's really the case. I think you're narrowing conservatism to equal the Republican party in the US. There are plenty of conservative views available in the media. They tend to get sidelined by Fox if they stray from partisan orthodoxy though.

Perhaps you could look at Andrew Sullivan's blog, for example, a conservative rejected and censored by Fox.

If you're looking for why sensible conservatism is silenced, look to the way that the major conservative media outlets treat those who dissent from the party line.

Well yes, there are plenty of conservatives and even more libertarians who don't get a voice on Fox News. But virtually none of the ones who do get a voice on Fox News would ever get a voice on places like MSNBC. MSNBC's definition of a conservative is Joe Scarborough and Meghan McCain....two people that are much more big-government Republicans than actual conservatives. I'm just surprised they still have S.E. Cupp on their channel.

The thing is, I don't really care about MSNBC, and posing it as some kind of "they're just as bad" basically says that Fox is pretty bad when it comes to news.

A fair few posters here are demanding that I criticise MSNBC for some some sort of imaginary balance to show that Fox ain't crazy right wing.

Meh...we are used to you looking the other way when it's convenient for you.

FOX is on the right, EVERYBODY ELSE is on the left. It doesn't make any sense for you to go on and on and on about FOX.

It's like pointing the finger at Libertarians for our 16 trillion dollar deficit that Democrats and Republicans rang up together

It kind of makes sense to discuss Fox in a thread about Fox, no?

[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.

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.

I have not read or watched much of the BBC. I enjoy Al Jazeera and it is in my regular rotation (with WSJ and realclearpolitics).

I think MSNBC is a tad less politically oriented than Fox, but only by a little bit. I think there was a direct relationship between the tendencies to trend left on MSNBC and Fox. MSNBC sees what Fox can do with a right-leaning organization and has been leaning the other way in an effort to replicate Fox's success.

[Timminz]

MSNBC sees what Fox can do with a right-leaning organization and has been leaning the other way in an effort to replicate Fox's success.

Except left-wingers don't eat up the partisan bullshit quite as happily as right-wingers, so MSNBC can never expect to get the high ratings Fox has.*



*half-joking

[thegreekdog]

MSNBC sees what Fox can do with a right-leaning organization and has been leaning the other way in an effort to replicate Fox's success.

Except left-wingers don't eat up the partisan bullshit quite as happily as right-wingers, so MSNBC can never expect to get the high ratings Fox has.*



*half-joking

Yeah, I never thought about it like that before.

[AAFitz]

MSNBC sees what Fox can do with a right-leaning organization and has been leaning the other way in an effort to replicate Fox's success.

Except left-wingers don't eat up the partisan bullshit quite as happily as right-wingers, so MSNBC can never expect to get the high ratings Fox has.*



*half-joking

Another thing liberals suck at!!!

[Timminz]

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[jonesthecurl]

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Oh. go on, be pretentious and say it in French.

[2dimes]

[betiko]

i don't know how to explain this... but from my point of view it is not understandable to have such thing as fox news.
In France, newspapers have known left or right bias, that can be strong or not.... news on tv always tend to be quite neutral. Anytime there is a right wing guy he has to be counterbalanced by a right wing one.
And we don't make up news.... we don't have so may uneducated people who are given freedom of speach on tv to make "political analysis" unless they interview some dumb ass people in the street.
I don't care if foxnews is right or left.... I just feel so sorry that you guys live in a country where it's acceptable to have this on tv, where eerything is about the audience not about being informative and professional.
I mean... I think about all these poor souls that find their information between the local news and fox news.... no wonder most americans live in a bubble and are so cringy.

[thegreekdog]

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

EVERYONE IS COMING BACK!

[Timminz]

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

EVERYONE IS COMING BACK!

Don't get your hopes up. I really only came back for the start of the fantasy football season.

Speaking of which, I think the league needs a few people. Anyone want to play fantasy football with us? There's no money involved, but you'll probably get an excellent draft position.

[Neoteny]

Put me in the football.

[Symmetry]

i don't know how to explain this... but from my point of view it is not understandable to have such thing as fox news.
In France, newspapers have known left or right bias, that can be strong or not.... news on tv always tend to be quite neutral. Anytime there is a right wing guy he has to be counterbalanced by a right wing one.
And we don't make up news.... we don't have so may uneducated people who are given freedom of speach on tv to make "political analysis" unless they interview some dumb ass people in the street.
I don't care if foxnews is right or left.... I just feel so sorry that you guys live in a country where it's acceptable to have this on tv, where eerything is about the audience not about being informative and professional.
I mean... I think about all these poor souls that find their information between the local news and fox news.... no wonder most americans live in a bubble and are so cringy.

French news isn't really widely respected, tbh. Perhaps that's unfair, but aside from maybe LeMonde and some pretty awesome individual investigative reporters- especially documentarians, the culture is seen as pretty sexist, racist, and bonded to Paris. Plus there's the problem of Francophile language tendencies.

It's a shame, because France as a whole is much more interesting in terms of ideas than its news TV and print suggests.

[thegreekdog]

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

EVERYONE IS COMING BACK!

Don't get your hopes up. I really only came back for the start of the fantasy football season.

Speaking of which, I think the league needs a few people. Anyone want to play fantasy football with us? There's no money involved, but you'll probably get an excellent draft position.

Unfortunately I'm already in 3 leagues...

[DoomYoshi]

This is the type of report that one finds in liberal newspapers:

I have now seen the famous German Leader and also something of the great change he has effected.

Whatever one may think of his methods — and they are certainly not those of a parliamentary country — there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvellous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each other, and in their social and economic outlook. . . .

There is for the first time since the war a general sense of security. The people are more cheerful. There is a greater sense of general gaiety of spirit throughout the land. It is a happier Germany. I saw it everywhere and Englishmen I met during my trip and who knew Germany well were very impressed with the change. . . .

As to his popularity, especially among the youth of Germany, there can be no manner of doubt. The old trust him; the young idolise him. It is not the admiration accorded to a popular Leader. It is the worship of a national hero who has saved his country from utter despondency and degradation. . . .

He is as immune from criticism as a king in a monarchical country. He is something more. He is the George Washington of Germany — the man who won for his country independence from all her oppressors. . . .

Hitler fought in the ranks throughout the war, and knows from personal experience what war means. . . .

It is now an avowed part of the Hitler policy to build up an army which will be strong enough to resist every invader from whatever quarter the attack may come. I believe he has already achieved that measure of immunity. . . .

There is no attempt to conceal these facts. Re-armament proceeds quite openly, and they vaunt it.

This was written by the then Prime Minister of UK - David Lloyd George (voted third greatest PM of Britain in the 20th century and the 79th greatest Briton of all time).

How is FOX News worse than that?

[riskllama]

what about if you watch it ironically?