padren Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 No, all that is required is a citation under news on Wikipedia. Decoys do not walk, nor do they talk, like a duck. 1) That criteria sounds like it's open to all kinds of abuse. Let's not give Stephen Colbert anymore ideas of how to mess with Wikipedia, shall we? Decoys can talk like a duck, convincingly enough to lure ducks, and it is not physically impossible to mimic ground locomotion, just unnecessary for their purpose. A decoy will never completely match the description of an actual duck, only enough to function within the scope of it's primary purpose. In the same way, Fox News mimics certain traits of a News agency, but it is no more a news agency than a decoy is a duck - it only resembles a News organization within the scope of it's primary purpose, which is not to report the news.
Mr Skeptic Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 No, because Twitter has no reporters who investigate the facts and interview people. Not that the Fox reporters, or any American news reporters, do their jobs all that well...but at least they have reporters and analysts. So you checked that every single twitter user is not a reporter nor an analyst? What about these guys?: http://www.breakingtweets.com/ http://twitter.com/Chowkyadgar I'm sure I can find more if you like.
padren Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 So you checked that every single twitter user is not a reporter nor an analyst? What about these guys?: http://www.breakingtweets.com/ http://twitter.com/Chowkyadgar I'm sure I can find more if you like. Twitter is a medium, and reporters do use twitter, phones, internet, television, and printed word as mediums to relay their acquired information but the medium is not the news agency.
SH3RL0CK Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 ...Fox News mimics certain traits of a News agency, but it is no more a news agency than a decoy is a duck - it only resembles a News organization within the scope of it's primary purpose, which is not to report the news. Well, here we have a difference of opinion (not necessarily mine ). Don't we (and the President B.T.W.) have to give FOX the benefit of the doubt since we cannot prove their primary purpose is not to report the news? Or can you prove this claim? And I haven't seen anything on this thread or otherwise I would consider sufficient proof that they do not intend to report the news.
Syntho-sis Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 1) That criteria sounds like it's open to all kinds of abuse. Let's not give Stephen Colbert anymore ideas of how to mess with Wikipedia, shall we? Decoys can talk like a duck, convincingly enough to lure ducks, and it is not physically impossible to mimic ground locomotion, just unnecessary for their purpose. A decoy will never completely match the description of an actual duck, only enough to function within the scope of it's primary purpose. In the same way, Fox News mimics certain traits of a News agency, but it is no more a news agency than a decoy is a duck - it only resembles a News organization within the scope of it's primary purpose, which is not to report the news. Okay, than it's perfectly fair to apply to same criteria to MSNBC, is it not? Which goes back to what I stated earlier. Whether they are 'news' or not, they still have a right to say whatever they want, however they want to say it. And why the White house, is getting all fussy over this I haven't the faintest idea.
SH3RL0CK Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 And why the White house, is getting all fussy over this I haven't the faintest idea. I think this is VERY obvious, the white house does not like how Fox "reports" the news (though I am sure they are fine when the news bias is in their favor). My belief is the White House should tolerate Fox rather than try to cut them out.
Syntho-sis Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 I think this is VERY obvious, the white house does not like how Fox "reports" the news (though I am sure they are fine when the news bias is in their favor). My belief is the White House should tolerate Fox rather than try to cut them out. Well we as Americans, don't pay them to worry about what pundits say about Obama. It's not their job, so to speak. For them to target a specific news organization, is wrong on so many levels. If this was ABC news could you imagine the firestorm?
SH3RL0CK Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 [this] is wrong on so many levels. I agree, and frankly I don't understand why Obama is not taking more heat for this. Its not about Fox, but about the principle of what is, and isn't proper behavior for a sitting President. But Obama's actions are not the point of this thread, so I'll stop digressing.
iNow Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 If someone in this thread had the good sense to simply define the term "NEWS" in how they are using it, I'm sure much of this silliness would end pretty quickly. This is no longer a thread about FOX and its flaws. It's a thread about each of our own individual and unique definitions of "what is news." There is no disagreement about what Fox is doing, only in how a term is applied. In short, iron out the semantics and we might actually accomplish something or reach an understanding here.
SH3RL0CK Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 If someone in this thread had the good sense to simply define the term "NEWS" in how they are using it, I'm sure much of this silliness would end pretty quickly. This is no longer a thread about FOX and its flaws. It's a thread about each of our own individual and unique definitions of "what is news." There is no disagreement about what Fox is doing, only in how a term is applied. In short, iron out the semantics and we might actually accomplish something or reach an understanding here. An excellent suggestion. I'll start, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/news noun (usually used with a singular verb) 1. a report of a recent event; intelligence; information: His family has had no news of his whereabouts for months. 2. the presentation of a report on recent or new events in a newspaper or other periodical or on radio or television. 3. such reports taken collectively; information reported: There's good news tonight. 4. a person, thing, or event considered as a choice subject for journalistic treatment; newsworthy material. Compare copy (def. 5). 5. newspaper. 6. newscast. Fox does provide reports of recent events (1), present it (2 and 3), and is a newscast (6). Therefore I submit that they must be considered a news organization despite the fact the reports may be biased, incorrect, or incomplete.
padren Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 Fox does provide reports of recent events (1), present it (2 and 3), and is a newscast (6). Therefore I submit that they must be considered a news organization despite the fact the reports may be biased, incorrect, or incomplete. Important to remember that a wolf in sheep's clothing is not just a "pretty bad sheep" that tends to eat the other sheep - it's a bloody wolf. I can't remember the name of the organization that was an industry shill for Big Tobacco that did "medical research" about tobacco use and health impacts... but it comes to mind: They did medical research, they used labs, but they were definitely a completely different animal than any other medical lab doing research into the health impacts of smoking. They were funded by the tobacco companies to produce very specific results that went far beyond the conventional definition of bias. I see Fox News as the same sort of entity. Now, we could break down our differences to a matter of semantics: Is an organization such as that tobacco research company just a "bad" medical research company that was created with being "sold out" as a part of it's founding criteria, or is it fair to label the entity as something different due to the nature of it's purpose? We could be arguing over whether Fox News is a rogue news agency (because the only times it actually reports news accurately is when it's convenient, nearly without exceptions) or whether or not it should be called a news agency at all. It's my opinion, but I would not call Fox a news agency. They only report news at all as a means to an ends that has nothing to do with reporting news. To me, that warrants a different classification. It's fair to evaluate a news agency as good to bad on the criteria of a news agency and there are many shades of gray. But when something is a wolf, you need to know to treat it as a wolf. Perhaps to me the biggest thing is the behavior of Fox News is more consistent with a different type of animal that is already clearly defined - a shill. While they exhibit many traits of a news agency, they exhibit more traits of a shill. A shill will often pose customer of a product - and even buy it, and rave about it. A dictionary definition would show they do satisfy the definition of a customer, but wouldn't it be dangerous to simply label such a participant in a con as a "bad customer" and not a shill?
Phi for All Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 I define news as an unbiased reporting of important or interesting events. By that definition, there probably hasn't been a true news program for decades, if ever. Bias in journalism is very hard to avoid. I appreciate it when a "news organization" feeds me the news, but allows me the freedom to chew on it myself, so I can decide whether to swallow it or spit it out as *I* see fit. FOX is like having a feeding tube forced down your throat. They are practicing gastrostomy, not journalism, as if they wanted to make sure to bypass the brain and go straight to digestion. Very unhealthy, very controlling and it very much upsets my tummy.
Syntho-sis Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 I define news as an unbiased reporting of important or interesting events. By that definition, there probably hasn't been a true news program for decades, if ever. Bias in journalism is very hard to avoid. I appreciate it when a "news organization" feeds me the news, but allows me the freedom to chew on it myself, so I can decide whether to swallow it or spit it out as *I* see fit. FOX is like having a feeding tube forced down your throat. They are practicing gastrostomy, not journalism, as if they wanted to make sure to bypass the brain and go straight to digestion. Very unhealthy, very controlling and it very much upsets my tummy. Is it the method of delivery that upsets you, or the material being fed? Perhaps all this skepticism of Fox is simply due to the disagreement of ideologies. That's what I see it as. This is mass ad hominem. Simple lesson in human nature.
bascule Posted October 28, 2009 Author Posted October 28, 2009 Is it the method of delivery that upsets you, or the material being fed? My problem with the material is when they cover anti-government protest they themselves created. Fox News may have started out as a news organization, but they have since become little more than a public policy advocacy group and political action committee with their own TV channel. Perhaps all this skepticism of Fox is simply due to the disagreement of ideologies. That's what I see it as. This is mass ad hominem. Simple lesson in human nature. Perhaps you should turn this lens back on yourself and ask why you don't consider MSNBC a news organization.
Phi for All Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 Is it the method of delivery that upsets you, or the material being fed? Perhaps all this skepticism of Fox is simply due to the disagreement of ideologies. That's what I see it as. This is mass ad hominem. Simple lesson in human nature. Ideology really doesn't come into it for me. I don't want a left-right, pro-con spin to my news, I want the facts. Sort of a Jack Webb approach, or the way witnesses are encouraged to testify in court. I don't want my judgments made for me, not even when I might agree with them. Especially when I agree with them, actually, because how can I trust the perspective when it was forced upon me?
SH3RL0CK Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 It's my opinion, but I would not call Fox a news agency. They only report news at all as a means to an ends that has nothing to do with reporting news. To me, that warrants a different classification. I understand your viewpoint here, however as I stated earlier, unless the worst of the claims against them can be proven, I have to give FOX the benefit of the doubt and call them a news agency. Do you have sufficient proof to back up the worst of your statements? While I would like to see these claims proven, proof doesn't seem to exist. Nor is it likely proof would matter in the realm of public opinion. Fox is an example of extremely poor journalism certainly. Perhaps Fox is an example of systematic unethical journalism, but I can't prove it. And sadly, the competition is indistinguishable to me with regards to the quality and apparent ethics of the reporting; the difference apparently is only political ideology. But that's just my opinion.
padren Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 I understand your viewpoint here, however as I stated earlier, unless the worst of the claims against them can be proven, I have to give FOX the benefit of the doubt and call them a news agency. Do you have sufficient proof to back up the worst of your statements? While I would like to see these claims proven, proof doesn't seem to exist. Nor is it likely proof would matter in the realm of public opinion. Fox is an example of extremely poor journalism certainly. Perhaps Fox is an example of systematic unethical journalism, but I can't prove it. And sadly, the competition is indistinguishable to me with regards to the quality and apparent ethics of the reporting; the difference apparently is only political ideology. But that's just my opinion. Well, I do understand your hesitation without proof, and that the allegations I am alleging are not trivial. Personally in my experience they behave consistently in a manner that makes me distrust them (and I do trust many opposing partisans) much the same way I would be skeptical of a con artist. I guess the key thing I want to convey, is just because they call themselves a News Agency and have investigative reporters, does not mean they are a News Agency as they can just as easily (and in my opinion are) a shill. That doesn't mean they are conclusively a shill - I can understand why some would feel like giving the benefit of the doubt in that regard. Perhaps there is enough evidence to prove they are and I just don't have the energy or collated facts to be an effective advocate for that case... I won't assert that they are conclusively a shill since I am not in the position to argue that effectively. It's the view I hold, but it's also far more like deciding if someone is lying to you - it's hard to distill all the little things that add up to an overall opinion.
Syntho-sis Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Perhaps you should turn this lens back on yourself and ask why you don't consider MSNBC a news organization. My skepticism of MSNBC is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The white house did not have a political right (or otherwise) to label Fox News as a propaganda machine or whatever it is they called it. Who cares what they think, it's not their job to take things personally. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIdeology really doesn't come into it for me. I don't want a left-right, pro-con spin to my news, I want the facts. Sort of a Jack Webb approach, or the way witnesses are encouraged to testify in court. I don't want my judgments made for me, not even when I might agree with them. Especially when I agree with them, actually, because how can I trust the perspective when it was forced upon me? Then why attack Fox specifically? There are many other organizations who put just as much spin on the news as they do, nobody's talking about those though. It's always Fox. Would anyone like to explain the excessive bias?
SH3RL0CK Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 It's always Fox. Would anyone like to explain the excessive bias? Three reasons that I see: 1) It is the only right-wing biased news organization. There are many left-wing organizations (I would say nearly all the others). As such, FOX stands out while the other organizations can say "we don't have a bias, see everyone else but FOX is saying the same thing" In other words, the large number of left-leaning organizations makes Fox appear more extreme than they are and makes themselves appear less extreme than what is actually the view of the public by sheer numbers. 2) As they ideologically stand apart from the others, and because they have high ratings in comparison, they naturally are a target of the other news organizations. It is in the interests of the other news organizations (as well as liberal politicians and pundits) to attack FOX. 3) I do think FOX takes what I will call "irresponsible" journalism a step further than the others and therefore gets more criticism. But it is a small step in my opinion, as I think all American (and most world) "news" organizations have abandoned ethics and impartiality.
Phi for All Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Then why attack Fox specifically?Because FOX is, imo, far more blatant about their slant than anyone else. They seem more like a television version of right-wing talk radio pretending to offer a fair and balanced view. They've become the masters of the far-right strategy I call "The Alzheimer's Gambit", where they accuse the left of doing (or not doing) something the right has been doing (or not doing) for years. Like former VP Cheney did recently, accusing the Obama administration of not honoring a military request for more troops in Afghanistan when the request sat unfulfilled for the last 8 months of the Bush administration. The Alzheimer's Gambit assumes the listener won't remember what happened all those months ago and will be too lazy to check it out. There are many other organizations who put just as much spin on the news as they do, nobody's talking about those though.Including you. I'd be curious to hear what other "news organizations" you think put as much spin on the news as FOX does. I agree that they all have some spin, but FOX is head and shoulders above the crowd in that regard. And, as has been proven, they literally distort and lie about the news, which removes any journalistic credentials they may have had once. It's always Fox. Would anyone like to explain the excessive bias?I think FOX is excessively biased because they are more of a political organization than a news organization. *I* am excessively biased about them because I think most (not all) people who watch FOX News exclusively want their opinions formed for them because it's too much work to look at different sources, and they really only want to hear views that coincide with theirs anyway. And I hate that kind of compound mentality and consider it to be detrimental to democracy in general. 1
iNow Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 My skepticism of MSNBC is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The white house did not have a political right (or otherwise) to label Fox News as a propaganda machine or whatever it is they called it. Sorry. Wrong. Just because they are in the government doesn't mean the First Amendment to our constitution suddenly stops applying to them.
padren Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Just a few thoughts: One, Fox actually sponsors and creates political rallies, then goes on to cover them as grassroots events. Two, they have a much worse track record on accuracy - which has been pointed out before. Their accuracy issues always favor the right. Three, I don't think it's entirely fair to call the rest of the media "left" when they really seem to be more pandering to the broader national mood. I am sure everyone remembers just how bad every MSM outlet covered the Bush years - as of 9/11 it became unpopular to question the administration. They all did a poor job asking questions. Exceptions were rare. The entire media is guilty of pandering. Most media try to pander to the national mood, or whatever they happen to think that is at the moment. Fox panders to just their target demographic, and does so with far more abandon to the point of outright inaccuracies.
toastywombel Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Fox is not a news organization, neither is MSNBC. They are both political opinion channels. The difference between Fox and MSNBC is that MSNBC does not label its snake poison as vitamin tonic, if you can understand that analogy. Let me explain: MSNBC- The Place for Politics FOX News- Fair and Balanced You see fox in its slogan and title suggests they are a news organization and that they are fair and balanced, when it is obvious from their entire line-up that Fox is not news and even if they reported honest news they are certainly not fair and balanced. Your World With Neil Cavuto (right wing) Glenn Beck (crazy right wing) Special Report With Bret Baier (right wing with a dash of watered down left wing sometimes) Fox Report with Shepard Smith (right wing in the bases that it selects conservative-friendly news stories) O'Reilly Factor (right wing) Hannity (right wing) Notice there is no liberal or progressive voice on the entire line up. Furthermore look at the list of the major Fox contributors. Karl Rove (right wing) Michelle Malkin (right wing) Fred Barnes (right wing) Billy Crystol (right wing) Oliver North (right wing and an involved party in the Iran Contra Scandal) Megyn Kelly (right wing) Steve Dooci (right wing) John Bolton (right wing) Steve Forbes (right wing free-marketeer) Ann Coulter (right wing) You can find a full list of all Fox News Anchors and contributors at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_programming#Personalities These are all noted Fox News contributers. It may be possible to debate whether Fox is news, but it is obvious that they are heavily polarized, even more so than MSNBC, not to say that MSNBC does not have a slant, but they do not claim to be "fair and balanced" or "the place for real journalism". Instead MSNBC uses a more appropriate slogan "the place for politics".
gre Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 My skepticism of MSNBC is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The white house did not have a political right (or otherwise) to label Fox News as a propaganda machine or whatever it is they called it. Who cares what they think, it's not their job to take things personally. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I believe the white house said fox news isn't a news organization as much as it is a perspective. (which is true) Then why attack Fox specifically? There are many other organizations who put just as much spin on the news as they do, nobody's talking about those though. It's always Fox. Would anyone like to explain the excessive bias? Because FOX news is setting a trend of twisting the truth for ratings, and they're pushing the envelope more than any other organization... Over time this will cause problems for the US.. News shouldn't be about twisting the truth. But the GOP (fox) has to do this to keep the poor-middle class on their side, but it gets old after a while... We have enough GOP related conspiracies out their already ("the dems will take my guns", etc) .. The public doesn't need some clown convincing people that Obama is a racist, and his birth cirtificate isn't valid, and the cars.org site will steal your personal information and ruin your life, or whatever the fox news losers are talking about.
toastywombel Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 One obvious fallacy, that I would like to point out and end on, is that fox often puts out is that the United States is a "center-right country". According to their logic Obama is the most liberal president ever, and the democrats have huge majorities in the house and senate. If the United States is so "center-right" how is it that the more liberal party controls all the elected portions of our Government. Furthermore, the Democrats didn't just eak out a win last election they shellacked the Republicans. Another final point to make against the "center-right country" argument that fox puts out. These are the numbers of registered voters and their party affiliation 63 million registered Democrats 47 million registered Republicans 32 million registered Independents or other affiliation to a minor party. The previous stats are from USA Today, and Here is a differing set of stats given by WikiAnswers: 'An estimated 201.5 million U.S. citizens age 18 or over will be eligible to vote Nov. 2, although many are not now registered. Of these, about 55 million are registered Republicans. About 72 million registered Democrats. About 42 million are registered as independents, under some other minor party or with a "No Party" designation.' 'An estimated 201.5 million U.S. citizens age 18 or over will be eligible to vote Nov. 2, although many are not now registered. Of these, about 55 million are registered Republicans. About 72 million registered Democrats. About 42 million are registered as independents, under some other minor party or with a "No Party" designation.' http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_registered_Democrats_are_there_in_the_US http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnists/neuharth/neu057.htm Doesn't look center-right to me.
Recommended Posts