Fox News omits coverage of Washington gay rights protest

[bascule]

Funny...to me this implies that Fox News can never be trusted, because they have a bias. I simply pointed out that so do all of the other precious stations and that the OP has no right to complain about their bias, if he watches CNN and trusts them with his news, to an extent.

He does, and as such, he should not complain.

 

Apparently you missed my point that by their own admission Fox Noise is not a news organization. They are an organization which disseminates right-wing opinion.

 

In that regard they cannot be directly compared to CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN/MSNBC because those are actual news organizations and Fox is not.

[Mr Skeptic]

There's a difference between blatant bias and blatant lying.

[iNow]

If you're going to refer to the Bible, do it correctly. I suggest you read it first though.

I've read the ridiculous bible, and the qu'ran. Thanks, though.

Also, then you would know the Bible says nothing of the sort.

 

I have read it, that is an accurate depiction of the fate of homosexuals.

I've read that book several times, and it sure seems to say that very thing.

Oh, yes, it mentions that in the OT, which, Christians are no longer supposed to follow.

Do you not see the problem with your approach here? You gave me shit and told me to go read the bible, suggesting my point was unsupported and that the bible did not condemn homosexuality.

 

I told you I'd read it, and you said, "it says nothing of the sort." You were corrected by everyone here.

 

Then, you said, "Oh, yeah... in the old testament, sure, but we're supposed to ignore that part."

 

 

You didn't tell me to go "read the parts of the bible" that you accept as valid, and "ignore the parts you've been taught to ignore."

You said, "Go read the bible."

 

 

Either way, my point remains. The FOX audience is a bunch of ignorant bigoted homophobes who disagree so profoundly with equal rights for gays that they would turn off the TV if their "news" channel were to show the millions of people in DC protesting...

 

... You know... despite their recent big stink about being the only organization which covers "all the news."

 

 

I pivot back to my first response... I can't take people seriously if they watch FOX news. I just can't, and I think my position is justified.

Edited October 14, 2009 by iNow

[A Tripolation]

Ha, funny thing is, being Christian means following Christ's teachings, and he says NOTHING of homosexuality. The OT is obviously a collection of metaphors and stories. And as such, the [current] Bible says NOTHING of homosexuality, so I WASN'T corrected, as I WASN'T wrong.

 

But this is so dangerously off-topic, I won't continue discussing it.

 

Well then, iNow, I don't see how you can take ANYONE who watches the news seriously, as they ALL HAVE BIAS.

I know you've admitted this, but it's like you're content ignoring their bias and you continue to watch them.

Edited October 15, 2009 by A Tripolation

[iNow]

The OT is obviously a collection of metaphors and stories. And as such, the [current] Bible says NOTHING of homosexuality, so I WASN'T corrected, as I WASN'T wrong.

Actually, you were (and ARE) wrong:

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc.htm

Romans 1:26-27:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

This passage is unique in that it is the only place in the Bible that refers to same-gender sexual behavior by women. Bennett Sims, the former Episcopal bishop of Atlanta, believes that these verses have done more to form Christians' negative opinion of homosexuality than any other single passage in the Bible. He writes: "

For most of us who seriously honor Scripture these verses still stand as the capital New Testament text that unequivocally prohibits homosexual behavior. More prohibitively, this text has been taken to mean that even a same-sex inclination is reprehensible, so that a type of humanity known as 'homosexual' has steadily become the object of contempt and discrimination.

"

 

In case some of you are not aware, Romans is a book of the new testament (the 6th one, in fact).

 

Or, are you taught to ignore that part, too?

 

 

And, for the record, I don't watch CNN or MSNBC, either.

[A Tripolation]

I learned the Bible on my own, with no help from anyone.

I wasn't TAUGHT anything on ignoring random parts.

 

Ha...funny thing, that WASN'T Jesus saying that. My original point of following Christ's teachings stands.

 

And I don't watch Fox News, and I'm not defending them. I think they are mostly all nutjobs. Just like I think CNN is far too elitist, and that MSNBC is far too liberal.

I'm calling out the fact that you all rail on conservative bias, but not liberal bias.

My original point, that you have still failed to address.

[padren]

I pivot back to my first response... I can't take people seriously if they watch FOX news. I just can't, and I think my position is justified.

 

I see this as an issue of the "in good faith" argument in discussions in general, and often the reason why threads here end up derailed into recriminations.

 

When you actually try to discuss modern events, politics, policy and the like with anyone it doesn't matter whether they agree with you or not, just whether they enter the discussion in good faith that, they are discussing ideas with you and not just pretending to be open minded so as to "educate" you as to the "right" way of thinking when they have their turn to talk.

 

With the first, you may not see eye to eye, and may never will, but you can usually discuss and even refine why you both take the stances you do and both improve overall understandings of some issue. Some people however try to appear as if they are engaging in a real discussion and at times even believe they are, but they are so close minded and set they are really just wasting your time while engaging in an exercise of reaffirming their own world view at all costs, and trying to convert you or write you off in the process with no middle ground.

 

The key to a good honest discussion, is the ability to be reasonable. If both sides are able to see reason, and base their arguments on reason - they can make progress and the ideas they discuss are more important than either party, and whether either is fully persuaded by the other or not, both generally come out with a broader understanding.

 

However, when people say, watch Fox News... a network designed to reaffirm a specific ideological view regardless of how reasonable or unreasonable it may be and regardless of all the facts it is very hard to believe they have any interest in a good faith discussion based on reason.

[iNow]

I'm calling out the fact that you all rail on conservative bias, but not liberal bias.

For the same reason that I eat more steak than ostrich, and more eggs from chickens than eggs from quail. One of them is FAR easier to find.

[bascule]

I'm calling out the fact that you all rail on conservative bias, but not liberal bias.

 

Okay, you're still not getting it, so let me spell it all out for you...

 

Did you miss this:

 

There's a difference between blatant bias and blatant lying.

 

Because it's a very important point. For you see, Fox News ran this ad:

 

 

It also played up the fact the tea parties were only getting covered by Fox. That was not the case. For you see, at the very least, CNN had extensive coverage of the event. It was a protest in WASHINGTON, after all, attended by tens of thousands of people. That makes it a newsworthy event. CNN is a news organization, so they covered it.

 

Here's a highlight reel of their coverage, with some commentary about the Fox news ad:

 

qM1f5xrOfGU

 

So yes, CNN covered the event, Fox News says they didn't.

 

That would make Fox News liars.

 

Now, worse, after claiming in their original lie that "WE COVER ALL THE NEWS," they couldn't even live up to that, and didn't even bother to send a satellite truck or any correspondents out to a gay rights rally of equal size at the same site as the 9.12 Protests. Instead they replayed ABC's footage.

 

That's pretty bad...

 

...but it gets worse!

 

Fox was hugely influential in organizing the 9.12 Protests, largely through Glenn Beck's 9.12 Project. Here a Fox News producer can be seen stoking the crowd:

 

IPYbPsvOnX8

 

Far from being outside observers, Fox News is effectively an organizer and a participant of the event.

 

Then they spread propaganda (i.e. lies) that the other news organizations didn't cover it when really they did, while at the same time claiming "WE COVER ALL THE NEWS."

 

Then they don't bother to cover similar sized protests in the same venue.

 

Does this add up to the fact that Fox News isn't a news organization in your head yet?

[ydoaPs]

We got rid of the religion section for a reason, people.

[swansont]

We got rid of the religion section for a reason, people.

 

Yes, we did. Please keep the posts on-topic.

[Mokele]

I'm calling out the fact that you all rail on conservative bias, but not liberal bias.

 

Not all bias is equal. The "liberal biased" news sources are *barely* liberal at all*, and their bias is minuscule in comparison to Fox. The "liberal" stations will not openly ignore facts, lie, etc to promote their agenda, as Fox will.

 

Complaining that we're picking on Fox is like getting pulled over for going 175 mph on the interstate and telling the cop you shouldn't be ticketed because someone going the other way was doing 66 mph.

 

 

 

* - I use "liberal" in quotes, because none of the networks are liberal, nor any of the parties. We have two parties in the US - far right extremists and center-right. Actual, real liberalism would make most American's heads explode.

[SH3RL0CK]

Actually, FOX is killing the others in ratings last time I checked... More viewers than all of the others combined. Do you have a recent source suggesting their viewership is declining? I could use some good news and would love to see such confirmation.

 

Well, I'll grant that FOX's share of the overall is growing. However, they are only taking an increasingly large share of a more rapidly shrinking pie.

 

I once saw a chart showing overall viewership of nesw media outlets which showed that in the 1960's well over 95% of households watched one of these every single night. Today, we are well below 50%, IIRC around the upper 20%. THAT is a major, major change which I beleive is due in part to the proliferation of alternatives but also due to the low quality of journalism in the major outlets. I tried but was unable to find this (or a similar) chart.

 

What I did find was this: http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2009/narrative_overview_keyindicators.php?cat=2&media=1

 

New patterns in news consumption and a deteriorating economy deepened the emerging cracks in the economic foundation of the media in 2008...

In a big news year, most media continued to see audiences shrink...

Only two platforms clearly grew: the Internet, where the gains seemed more structural, and cable, where they were more event-specific.

...The economic storm of 2008 accelerated the crisis facing news business, forcing the weakest into insolvency and testing the strength of the rest....Other than in cable news, the picture in newsrooms in 2008 was brutal, and 2009 could be worse...

 

Edit: I'd also like to add that I beleive FOX is increasing market share not by good journalism, but because they have made themselves different than the other media outlets. While the majority of the outlets are neutral to liberal in bias (depending on where you draw the lines), FOX is the only outlet which has a clearly conservative bias. In a country where the demographics are roughly equal between liberals and conservatives, it makes sense to me that they will eventually attract as many viewers as all other outlets combined...

 

Its not a bad business strategy to become the biggest player in a shrinking market (if you must stay in a shrinking market). And because there is no other conservatively biased outlet, FOX had/has a great business opportunity to do this.

Edited October 15, 2009 by SH3RL0CK

[A Tripolation]

So yes, CNN covered the event, Fox News says they didn't.

 

That would make Fox News liars.

 

I never said that CNN didn't, nor did I EVER think that Fox News was telling the truth and that ALL of the other stations missed the tax protests.

That wasn't my point.

My point is that with most of the media being "liberal" (as Mokele is most certainly right about the majority of political beliefs in America), one far-right station just isn't that big a deal...everyone has bias.

 

And again with a nod to Mokele, speeding is STILL speeding, as bias is still bias, no matter the magnitude. News is NOT supposed to be biased.

[bascule]

My point is that with most of the media being "liberal", one far-right station just isn't that big a deal...everyone has bias.

 

I don't think you can defend the assertion about "most of the media being liberal". Perhaps you could argue that there's a slight liberal bias among television news media.

 

If that's the case, Fox News is irrelevant. By their own admission they are not a news organization. People don't tune into Fox News to get the news. They tune into Fox News to have their own world view re-enforced.

 

If you want the news, tune into a real news organization.

 

However, as soon as you step beyond television, the picture regarding political bias changes completely. Talk radio is overwhelmingly dominated by conservatives. At this point I think it's safe to say newspapers are dominated by conservatives too. News Corporation, Fox News's parent corporation, now controls far more newspapers than any other single organization on the planet.

 

In terms of total reach I don't think there is a way of objectively quantifying whether "the media" are liberal or conservative. My hunch is that there's a slight conservative bias. You'll no doubt argue there's a liberal one. Who's right? Hard to say...

 

News is NOT supposed to be biased.

 

No, it's not, it's supposed to be objective. For the most part I think most news organizations, especially CNN, try very hard to remain objective. In CNN's case they actually try so hard to give conservatives a voice and not criticize them that it actually negatively affects their reporting. Conservatives are given carte blanche to say whatever they want on CNN and the moderators don't even bother fact checking them.

 

Jon Stewart recently did a segment on this, showing CNN fact checking Saturday Night Live, then giving a conservative commentator carte blanche:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/daily-show-destroys-cnn-f_n_318295.html

 

In Fox "News's" case, there is absolutely no desire for objectivity, and opinion is interspersed throughout their reporting.

[JillSwift]

I never said that CNN didn't, nor did I EVER think that Fox News was telling the truth and that ALL of the other stations missed the tax protests.

That wasn't my point.

My point is that with most of the media being "liberal" (as Mokele is most certainly right about the majority of political beliefs in America), one far-right station just isn't that big a deal...everyone has bias.

 

And again with a nod to Mokele, speeding is STILL speeding, as bias is still bias, no matter the magnitude. News is NOT supposed to be biased.

Actually, that analogy doesn't work.

 

We know that people are going to instill bias in their retelling of events - it's just built into the way we function. No news source is going to manage objectivity.

 

We still need news, however. In selecting a source of news, and knowing none are going to manage the level of objectivity we would really prefer, which makes the better source:

 

• News colored by the views of the reporters and producers.
  
• News infused with editorializing, intended and engineered "spin", and the occasional outright fabrication designed to be appealing to a particular audience.
  

Yes, it's fair and appropriate to complain about any bias from any news media. But as that bias escalates, it is also fair and appropriate to escalate the complaints along with it.