Fox News Channel is the "News of Record"

[Pangloss]

Recently a thread here asked whether Fox News Channel was a "legitimate" news outlet. I was surprised to see so many intelligent people here failing recognize the boots-on-the-ground reality of the American news landscape, and I don't mean the popularity of that network in the red states, I mean the simple reality of the mechanics of news reporting. So let me pose the subject a different way, stating my opinion in three key points:

 

1) Fox News Channel has become the "news of record" for the United States of America, supplanting the New York Times and Washington Post.

 

2) This is a good thing, because it introduces a kind of ideological competition that was desperately lacking from the business.

 

3) This competition is to everyone's advantage whether you are liberal, conservative, or anything else.

 

The second and third points follow my opinion on the first point in a rather obvious manner, so let me just focus on defending that first assertion, for which I offer the following as evidence.

 

Point #1: Fox News Channel (FNC) follows the standards and conventions of news reporting. Biased or not, the format is the same, and when I say "format" I mean not just the layout of their programming, but right down to the details of a news story and how it is read on the air -- it's exactly the same. The only difference -- the part that is pointed at as indicative of bias -- is in the selection of questions asked, talking points raised, and repetition of storylines. But if that's evidence of bias then it has to be applied to ALL news outlets, because there is not one single news outlet that doesn't select its questions, investigate what it wants to investigate, and repeat the stories it feels are worth repeating. So there is no fundamental difference, at the "format" level, between FNC and any other outlet. (Clearly, whether one sees it as sinister or just clever, this is by design.)

 

Point #2: FNC "gets the gets". By that I mean that they are able to interview pretty much whomever they like. They have established sufficient credibility (primarily through the careful implementation of Point #1 and their overwhelming popularity with Americans) to earn them positions in the White House Briefing Room (and the right to ask questions there) and every other government media outlet. They also get the big interviews -- the President and Cabinet, Senators, House Members, state government officials, newsmakers, CEOs -- anybody they want. You do see some holdouts here and there -- people who refuse to go on FNC -- but you see that with other outlets as well (it just doesn't usually make the news, which says something about how the other outlets see FNC), and generally those exceptions are based on stories in progress. And just to rub salt in the wound, FNC often "gets" interviews with newsmakers that won't appear on mainstream outlets for ideological reasons, so I think the holdout thing is a wash. No *advantage* to FNC, but no disadvantage either.

 

Point #3: FNC puts stories in the news cycle through its coverage, which is what "news of record" organizations do. This has been happening more and more frequently over the last couple of years, and I'm not sure exactly why, but it's quite interesting. Story after story has become part of the news cycle only after being ignored by the "newspapers of record" but picked up and run by FNC. Recent examples include the ACORN scandal and several subjects listed in the discussion below.

 

Discussion:

 

The current immigration story is a good exemplar. Recently I was in Aspen at the same time as the annual Aspen Ideas Summit, and their tiny little airport was so packed with $50 million bizjets that my little commuter plane had trouble getting to the strip's single passenger gate. (Not really on subject, but while I was sitting there I brought up the FAA's tail# registry and looked up each of the airplanes that was chaperoned past the gate by the ground crew. Disney, LucasArts and Dreamworks all had their $50 million Bombardier Global Explorers there, and I saw at least six other BGEs who's registries were sufficiently hidden in dummy corps that I couldn't identify them. Apparently Al Gore isn't the only one contributing to global warming while he fights global warming!)

 

Anyway, "vacationing" Attorney General Eric Holder was interviewed on stage by "vacationing" CBS News' Meet the Press anchor Bob Schieffer, and this was broadcast on local television. Fox News Channel picked up the interview and ran an interesting portion of the show, which featured Schieffer asking a question that was premised on an incorrect statement that the new Arizona immigration law allows the police to stop and request citizenship papers from anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally (the law doesn't allow this, which is why the Justice Department is officially challenging the law on other grounds, even while they tell the public a different story).

 

Because of Fox News' coverage, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post and CNN actually questioned Schieffer on his program on Sunday, asking him why he got the law wrong in his question to Holder. Schieffer dismissed the error, saying he wasn't aware of the distinction and explaining that he was on vacation. This may well be the case, but it seems to point out the fact that many in mainstream journalism don't pay attention to Fox News, to their detriment. At any rate, the fact that Kurtz asked him the question supports the notion that FNC is becoming the "news of record".

 

Interestingly, Kurtz's own organization, the Washington Post, also came under fire on Sunday from its own ombudsman for under-reporting the Black Panthers story. This is regarding the story we discussed here recently about the Justice Department deciding to draw back in the voter intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther party.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071604081.html

 

The Post didn't cover it. Indeed, until Thursday's story, The Post had written no news stories about the controversy this year. In 2009, there were passing references to it in only three stories.

 

...

 

The Post should never base coverage decisions on ideology, nor should it feel obligated to order stories simply because of blogosphere chatter from the right or the left.

 

But in this case, coverage is justified because it's a controversy that screams for clarity that The Post should provide. If Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and his department are not colorblind in enforcing civil rights laws, they should be nailed. If the Commission on Civil Rights' investigation is purely partisan, that should be revealed. If Adams is pursuing a right-wing agenda, he should be exposed.

 

National Editor Kevin Merida, who termed the controversy "significant," said he wished The Post had written about it sooner. The delay was a result of limited staffing and a heavy volume of other news on the Justice Department beat, he said.

 

I think that quote speaks volumes about one of the two institutions currently considered the "news of record". And the fact that it came to light because of FNC supports the notion that FNC is becoming the "news of record".

 

In another recent example, when the Obama administration tapped Van Jones, an environmental activist who had at one time accused the Bush administration of causing 9/11, to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, nobody in the mainstream news reported 9/11 angle except for Fox News Channel. FNC's reporting caused the story to "go wide", causing the White House to respond to the story, putting it in the public eye, eventually prompting an apology and ultimately Van Jones' resignation.

 

Agree or disagree with it, that is what "news of record" organizations do. If they didn't Tricky Dick would have had a smooth sail through his second term. And yet some question whether it is a "legitimate" news organization. Why? The accusation of bias seems insufficient to cover the question of authority.

 

And at the very least, this seems to permanently shelve the question of legitimacy. It's hard to see how it could be the "news of record" without being "legitimate".

 

What do you all think?

[iNow]

Doesn't it have to be a valid representation of reality to be called news?

[Pangloss]

I don't know, does it? CNN reported the reincarnation of Jesus a few years ago, if memory serves. (Oddly enough, we seem to still be here.)

[vordhosbn]

Chewbacca defense...

What Jesus and CNN have to do with the FNC?

 

Without pondering much over the question whether Fox News falls into the definition of "news", don't you think that the bias shown by FNC has at least quantitative difference compared to other similar networks. And even if it such does not existed, don't you see such bias as a problem in general?

[Pangloss]

I'm not claiming FNC bias is moot because it doesn't exist, I'm claiming it's moot because it doesn't affect the determination of whether they are either "legitimate" or the "news of record". This is supported by the reasoning indicated in bold points 1-3 above. I welcome any challenge on this. Let 'er rip.

[ParanoiA]

Great post Pangloss and very well supported. I don't disagree with your points.

 

An overly simplistic summary is that mainstream news is evolving and old worn out news organizations that still believe in the tired idea of "objective" journalism are no longer the "news of record". They were never objective, and FNC just rubs that in their face each and every day. This false appeal to objectivity has thoroughly twisted the minds of liberals and democrats such that they say things like "What liberal bias?" after watching CNN or MSNBC.

 

Doesn't it have to be a valid representation of reality to be called news?

 

Well, if we hold them to that standard then FNC won't have any competition. We're nice enough to tolerate the antics of CNN for now...

 

Without pondering much over the question whether Fox News falls into the definition of "news", don't you think that the bias shown by FNC has at least quantitative difference compared to other similar networks. And even if it such does not existed, don't you see such bias as a problem in general?

 

No and no. It has the appearance of quantitative difference because it's far more overtly presented. The Cronkite Museums still peddling news stories are operating under the assumption that they're providing "objective" journalism. One wonders if they share an intellectual room with "separate-but-equal", bearing such antiquated mysticism.

 

I think overt bias is ultimately a far more healthy diet for news junkies than unrealistic models of objective perfection that has never been produced by a human mind. The first case corrupts in the foreground while the latter case currupts in the background.

 

Of course, FNC still claims "fair and balanced"...some things never change.

Edited July 20, 2010 by ParanoiA

[Moontanman]

So lying like a rug when it boosts ratings isn't problem? A bias is one thing but Fox has been caught up in outright lies many times, supporting ones bias with lies is hardly what i would call news, it's more like... politics....

[john5746]

I'm not even sure what news is anymore. I never seem to catch the anchors talking, I just see the talk shows while I'm flipping through channels. I don't buy the tripe that all news was liberal before FOX came along. I think it is more partisan, directed for certain audiences now.

[Pangloss]

So lying like a rug when it boosts ratings isn't problem? A bias is one thing but Fox has been caught up in outright lies many times, supporting ones bias with lies is hardly what i would call news, it's more like... politics....

 

Again, not what I said. I'm trying to establish a subtle but important point here, and those of you bringing up bias are causing a distraction, presumably because you don't like the point I'm making. I object to this.

 

I'm not claiming FNC bias doesn't exist, I'm claiming it doesn't affect the determination of whether they are either "legitimate" or the "news of record". This is supported by the reasons I indicated: They follow the standards and conventions, they draw the appropriate interview subjects to address the stories of the day, and they "put" stories in the news cycle that would otherwise have been ignored. This is what "news of record" organizations do, regardless of bias.

 

I've made an assertion and I've supported it with evidence. Does anyone have the ability to challenge my assertion? There's no time element -- I don't take lack of response as indication of truth. But I do expect responses to take aim at the assertion, not repeat irrelevant (though certainly popular) memes.

[Dudde]

I'm not claiming FNC bias doesn't exist, I'm claiming it doesn't affect the determination of whether they are either "legitimate" or the "news of record".

 

This, mixed with the fact Moontainman brought up, which I agree with:

So lying like a rug when it boosts ratings isn't problem?

 

I think would actually affect the fact that they're legitimate, unless you accept bold faced misinformation as legit - and 'news of the record', I guess it could be, but only because they lead their followers to believe such

 

don't get me wrong, I don't hate specifically fox, I hate almost all news outlets, they all suck, fox is just more annoying at it

[Pangloss]

We've not had any examples posted here of FNC "lying like a rug" (or any other household decorative). If some surface perhaps they could be offered into evidence. In the meantime that possibility does not advance this exploration.

 

Nobody wants to bring up Shirley Sherrod? The plot's still thickening on that one, but she did resign today.

[iNow]

Well, if we hold them to that standard then FNC won't have any competition. We're nice enough to tolerate the antics of CNN for now...

 

Except, I don't watch CNN either, nor did I bring them up, nor is it at all relevant to my post. What's your point, exactly?

[ParanoiA]

Except, I don't watch CNN either, nor did I bring them up, nor is it at all relevant to my post. What's your point, exactly?

 

What is the "relevance" of you watching CNN? You said a new organization should be grounded in reality and I said that if we held everyone to that standard, that Fox news wouldn't have competition. And then I used CNN as the object of ridicule. How does my reply have anything at all to do with what you watch? Maybe you should think it through before all the "relevant" retorts you like to toss about so much.

 

You replied to Pangloss's lengthy, carefully crafted OP, complete with bullet points of evidence and well supported reason, with a half assed petulant remark and you expected to be taken seriously? You think that's an appropriate response to such a well formulated origination post for a thread? That really was your intelligent response?

 

Sorry, I missed all that. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and considered your post a "yeah well f**k you too" sourpuss response. But if you're all about "relevance" and parsing the detail of your content, then apparently you're really serious about that post. So, by all means, please continue. I can't wait for the second sentence...

 

 

Again, not what I said. I'm trying to establish a subtle but important point here, and those of you bringing up bias are causing a distraction, presumably because you don't like the point I'm making. I object to this.

 

I think I helped spoil the broth with my initial post on bias. Sorry. I knew that has been, and would continue to be the point of objection, conflated with accusations of fraud so that bias becomes the motive and lies become the crime and thus "illegitimate".

 

I know I've seen and dealt with fairly liberal bias in news since I was a child, although I didn't know that's what it was until I got older and learned about the various ideologies and affiliations. But throughout that time, it never invalidated the news or their role in the process. I've always viewed the media somewhat hostily, and I still do, even more than ever before, but I never labeled them illegitimate. Even when they spin things to fit in their little world, they still do us the service of "news of record".

 

I'm just not buying the holier than thou act these jokers are selling. I'm not buying the appeals to objectivity nor the insistance that they sell truth - all BS. They sell facts wrapped up in opinion pieces. They're hoping you won't know the difference.

Edited July 21, 2010 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

And despite posts like the above, I'm the only one the staff berates for tone.

 

Nobody wants to bring up Shirley Sherrod? The plot's still thickening on that one, but she did resign today.

 

 

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_07/024821.php

 

The full video of Shirley Sherrod's remarks to the NAACP in March has been posted, and there is no longer any doubt that she's been treated unfairly. Indeed, far from being offensive, the video is actually quite endearing -- we hear from a Southern, African-American woman overcoming division and racial acrimony to do the right thing, learning a valuable lesson about helping families in need.

 

Fox News pointed to the truncated video as "Exhibit A" of "what racism looks like." That's backwards -- it's a heart-warming example of someone rising above racism. Her remarks weren't offensive; the right-wing scheme to destroy her is.

 

Andrew Breitbart's initial claim that the video is "evidence of racism" is the exact opposite of reality. The only way to smear Sherrod is to remove every shred of relevant context, which is exactly what the right-wing Big Government website did. Two days after the edited, misleading clip was pushed onto the national scene, with the intention of destroying Sherrod's credibility, the video has backfired -- destroying the credibility of those who went on the attack.

 

The NAACP, which initially endorsed Sherrod's forced resignation on Monday, has since changed its mind. Late yesterday, NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Jealous conceded in a statement that his organization was "snookered by Fox News and Tea Party Activist Andrew Breitbart."

 

 

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/fooled-again-and-again-and-again/

 

Ms. Sherrod was an Agriculture Department official; a right-wing blogger released clips of a video that purportedly showed her making racist remarks; the clips were featured big on Fox News; and the Obama administration promptly fired her.

 

But whaddya know, the scandal was fake. The clips were taken completely out of context. It was basically as if I said, “Some people say that violence is always the answer; they’re wrong”, Fox ran with the story “Krugman says violence is always the answer”, and the Times fired me.

[Pangloss]

Isn't it interesting how Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, dives into the Sherrod story? So closely related to economics, that issue, right?

 

At any rate, he has his timeline wrong -- Sherrod was fired before she was brought up on Fox News Channel. I saw her first appearance on Bill O'Reilly myself, and he actually said in that piece that she'd been fired, and it's my understanding that that happened on a previous day (maybe the day before), and she had only appeared on FNC earlier THIS day, after being fired. (Or at least that's what BOR said last night.) (Edit: This turned out not to be the case -- FNC went live with the story before she was asked to resign.)

 

And Fox News Channel didn't fire Shirley Sherrod. The Obama administration did. So the ire should be aimed at them -- they should have read/listened to the entire story before jumping to conclusions.

 

That having been said, it supports my assertion that FNC has become both "legitimate" and the "news of record", because their reporting, or in this case fear of their pending reporting, produced a result. It isn't a pretty result, but at the time of reporting Nixon might have been innocent too -- it wasn't the place of Bernstein and Woodward to decide -- they simply reported the story. And what's Fox News Channel's motto? "We report. You decide." Interesting.

 

Liberals are simply discovering, suddenly and to their vast dismay, that the power of the press goes both ways. They can no longer step back, calling the newspapers of record legitimate and simply shrugging off accusations of bias, because that won't protect their vaunted ideological institutions anymore. They have to fight, and they're finding that the fight isn't as easy as they thought it was (or very much fun).

 

Oh btw, the vaunted institution of ABC News with Diane Sawyer ran a piece last night on Bill Clinton's bucket list, sandwiched in between Boneva ads. Maybe the question shouldn't be who's legitimate, but rather who's relevant.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And despite posts like the above, I'm the only one the staff berates for tone.

Really? Why wasn't I informed of this?

[jackson33]

Moon; I'm using your comment, only because it goes to the root question, nothing personal...

 

So lying like a rug when it boosts ratings isn't problem? [/Quote]

 

Both Roger Ailes (FNC) and Rupert Murdock (Newscorp), openly admit to ratings, as the point of their relevance in the News Business, acknowledging "Incomes" are derived from those ratings. In turn each program, the personalities involved, their staff and guest (if any) are designed to be of interest to the audiences they strive to acquire and maintain, none of which has anything to do what's broadcast as news and/or opinions. Many of these people are or have been trained in law, Lawyers and several Judges and every show is heavily judged as to content, authenticity being very much part of the effort.

 

I'd have to have more than a few examples of "lying" opposed to errors from the field or on staff investigative journalist, but what your indicating to me is that other Cable News and/or Media, by not lying are in fact losing their ratings, IMO more importantly not reporting News than MAY be contrary to the audiences THEY seek. News is news and news programs should relay whatever that news is, as is from the source. In the case of Fox, they probably have today the largest Worldwide Staff of journalist/reporters and are in fact the News Source, many in other media may be ignoring.

 

Doesn't it have to be a valid representation of reality to be called news? [/Quote]

 

iNow; On any given day FNC may introduce 10 or more Newsworthy items IMO, that will not be covered by any or few of the other media sources. What they are in fact NOT doing is JUDGING "valid representation of reality", leaving it to their audience and as on any subject matter in news, follow up investigation. News is News, not necessarily a final conclusion.

 

Except, I don't watch CNN either, nor did I bring them up, nor is it at all relevant to my post. What's your point, exactly? [/Quote]

 

In assuming 'either' implies FNC, respectfully then, what relevance do your comments carry, in the first place?

[Pangloss]

The reason I brought up CNN (in post #3) was to point out that if CNN is as bad as Fox News Channel then this actually supports my case that FNC is legitimate, because (according to my assertion) legitimacy and "news of record" status is determined by the following of industry practices, the acquisition of appropriate and timely interview guests, and the ability to "put" stories into the news cycle. FNC accomplishes this at least as well as CNN.

 

Whether that's dragging the establishment down to the level of FNC or raising FNC to some lofty heights is a separate (though interesting) question; the subject of this thread is whether FNC is legitimate and whether it is becoming the "news of record" for Americans.

[PhDP]

About point #2, credibility and popularity and two very distinct thing. Creationists are far more popular than evolutionary scientists, they're certainly not more credible, and they arguably have more impact on politicians. A so-called "news network" can easily become big, popular enough to scare politicians, and have litte merit as a news organization, even if they get a good story from time to time. Fox isn't a legitimate news network if it doesn't do its job, which is to inform (the "news" part). I'm not sure they do that very well, I'm not sure people who watch Fox news comes out better informed, and I also doubt Fox news is taken very seriously outside the US (as most polarized "news networks").

 

I would be curious to see;

 

(1): The proportion of Fox news viewers who believe completely crazy things (creationism, Obama is born in Kenya, global warming doesn't exist, WMDs were found in Iraq, [insert crazy stuff from the left/right]), compared to, say CNN or MSNBC viewers. After all, if Fox news fails to inform, how can it a legitimate "news" network ?

 

(2): How many times Fox News stories are used outside the US. In short, are journalists with no association to any US political party taking Fox seriously ?

[Moontanman]

I think this boils down to a phenomena that might not unique to our times but it is certain lionized by our society. That would be hooking up with people who are willing to pat you on the back and say yeah, that's exactly the way it is.

 

Yes the reptilians have taken over our world government and it's just a matter of time before the number of children who disappear into the sewer systems as first food for their infants can no longer be ignored!

 

Yes capitalism is the word of God and the rich must be protected at all costs....

 

Hitler is still alive and breeding an army of super soldiers with his DNA!!!

 

The world is going to end this weekend!

 

No matter how strange you are you can find a group of people who agree with you, Fox News capitalizes on the conservative urges of the population by telling them they were right all along the liberals have been poisoning the well and no one is safe unless they agree with us and since we agree with your conservative values and will report the news in your image instead of that sorry crap that agrees with science, and real intelligence, who needs intelligence you have us, we'll tell you what to think and do! And yes Obama is a fake....

 

It's sad, Fox News is nothing but a subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) attempt at using fear and loathing of change and the truth when it falls out side our own world view to influence people. People who do not want to hear anything but what they agree with. No intelligence required....No need to think for your self we'll tell you what to think and it will always be within your basic need for the past to come back to life, things never change, the old values will always save us if we just believe!

 

Ever wonder if NAZI Germany had is own news net work so the people could believe they were on the right side and the Jews really were destroying the world, no wait that was propaganda

Edited July 21, 2010 by Moontanman

[Pangloss]

Creationists are far more popular than evolutionary scientists, they're certainly not more credible, and they arguably have more impact on politicians.

 

Do we have any numbers that indicate that creationist influence is actually widespread, and not an isolated problem in certain communities? I realize the recent Texas schoolbook story that we discussed here affected an entire state, but that almost proves my point, because it wasn't a blatant creationism move, it was more of a toned-down, across-the-board, general promotion of a slightly-more-conservative approach. The wider the scope, the lighter the push -- why? Surely this suggests that creationism is not as widespread or accepted as some would have us believe.

 

 

About point #2, credibility and popularity and two very distinct thing.

 

A so-called "news network" can easily become big, popular enough to scare politicians, and have litte merit as a news organization, even if they get a good story from time to time.

 

Popularity was not the concept I put forth in point #2. The idea behind point #2 is that FNC acquires appropriate and relevant interview subjects. I have (edit: NOT) suggested that FNC is more legitimate or the "news of record" just because it's popular.

 

 

How many times Fox News stories are used outside the US. In short, are journalists with no association to any US political party taking Fox seriously ?

 

That's a great question, thanks for bringing it up. I don't know the answer, but it may be relevant to note that The Guardian (do I have that right?) and other conservative outlets in the UK are taken seriously overseas.

 

 

The proportion of Fox news viewers who believe completely crazy things (creationism, Obama is born in Kenya, global warming doesn't exist, WMDs were found in Iraq, [insert crazy stuff from the left/right]), compared to, say CNN or MSNBC viewers. After all, if Fox news fails to inform, how can it a legitimate "news" network ?

 

Just because the crazies tune in doesn't mean that the network "fails to inform". Is CNN responsible for its crazies? You said "proportion", implying that the network with the highest number of tuned-in crazies is to be lopped off the list of legitimate outlets. So if CNN becomes the most popular outlet, you'll tune in to Fox News?

 

 

I think this boils down to a phenomena that might not unique to our times but it is certain lionized by our society. That would be hooking up with people who are willing to pat you on the back and say yeah, that's exactly the way it is.

 

Interesting point. Perhaps it's been that way all along, but the science and liberal-progressive communities were so in sync that the science community didn't notice they were being lead around by the nose on subjects (politics) they tend not to pay much attention to. I see the science community rear up against the liberal-progressive community every now and then, mainly in objection to things like aging hippies who suddenly remember their old tree-spiking days, but the community never quite seems to draw a connection to the larger picture (if there is one).

 

Condemning Fox News is easy. Getting the entire science community to take a peek under its own motivational covers, not so much.

[jackson33]

About point #2, credibility and popularity and two very distinct thing. Creationists are far more popular than evolutionary scientists, they're certainly not more credible, and they arguably have more impact on politicians. A so-called "news network" can easily become big, popular enough to scare politicians, and have little merit as a news organization, even if they get a good story from time to time. Fox isn't a legitimate news network if it doesn't do its job, which is to inform (the "news" part). I'm not sure they do that very well, I'm not sure people who watch Fox news comes out better informed, and I also doubt Fox news is taken very seriously outside the US (as most polarized "news networks").[/Quote]

 

PhDP; Would you agree that some creditability must exist for popularity to grow or without creditability that growth would slow or cease? If your answer is yes, then the facts are all present and Fox, has become a leading News Source around the World and read or heard on a good share of all media, whether or not the items are acknowledged. Legitimacy, authenticity or accuracy of content, simply can't be defined by reporting an action, activity or event. A speaker speaks, a horse race is run or an event is covered and all news, but the outcomes in many cases not 100% confirmed accurate. An effective relay of information (news) is not a history lesson, where everything involved has been settled, at least to a degree.

 

(1): The proportion of Fox news viewers who believe completely crazy things (creationism, Obama is born in Kenya, global warming doesn't exist, WMDs were found in Iraq, [insert crazy stuff from the left/right]), compared to, say CNN or MSNBC viewers. After all, if Fox news fails to inform, how can it a legitimate "news" network ? [/Quote]

 

Somehow I think you trying to demonstrate the politics of people or demographics Fox has chose in part to draw from. Fox News or any person I'm aware of on the networks has ever declared Obama was born in Kenya, but there has been a great deal of news surrounding efforts of some that try to prove their points. Global Warming IMO, at least as caused by humans doesn't exist and it was the Brit's and US Government Officials that felt WMD might exist in Iraq, NOT Fox News. I don't doubt your opinion, that CNN and MSNBC are hard core liberals, Bush hater and above all ANTI Capitalist.

 

(2): How many times Fox News stories are used outside the US. In short, are journalists with no association to any US political party taking Fox seriously ? [/Quote]

 

I saw this argument many times a few years back when Newscorp made it's play for the WSJ (Wall Street Journal), from those wishing to stop the transaction and frankly from folks in Australia and Europe. However and again, regardless of how a news item is presented (anywhere), quoting the Associated Press (AP), Sky News (Newscorp) or any number of used News sources, there is a good chance it came from some entity belonging the Newscorp...

[navigator]

Evidently it is the news of record for some in this administration. Yesterday, Shirley Sherod was fired from the USDA because she was told (Im paraphrasing)"They said I was going to be on Glen Beck tonight and they wanted me to resign". She said she pulled over to the side of the road and gave her resignation. All this over an edited tape from 25 years ago that was supposed to be aired on Fox later in the day.

 

As the dust begins to settle, the context of the full video removes most of the racist implication. There have been apologies issued to her today and the last I heard she has been offered a new position.

[Moontanman]

Possibly the entire problem revolves around what liberal and conservatives really stand for. Liberals try to change the rules to fit reality, conservatives try to change reality to fit the rules, that's pretty much how i see it.... of course it could be a good thing for some people, i for one of course check anything I hear from Fox like it came from the American Association of crazy people.... give me reason to stay on top of the BS I'm being fed...

 

Do we have any numbers that indicate that creationist influence is actually widespread, and not an isolated problem in certain communities? I realize the recent Texas schoolbook story that we discussed here affected an entire state, but that almost proves my point, because it wasn't a blatant creationism move, it was more of a toned-down, across-the-board, general promotion of a slightly-more-conservative approach. The wider the scope, the lighter the push -- why? Surely this suggests that creationism is not as widespread or accepted as some would have us believe.

 

 

Obviously you do not live in the southern USA or know many religious fundilmentalists... even the local Catholics are into the whole creationist thing...

 

Popularity was not the concept I put forth in point #2. The idea behind point #2 is that FNC acquires appropriate and relevant interview subjects. I have suggested that FNC is more legitimate or the "news of record" just because it's popular.

 

Sadly popularity is how the news is judged, i will admit that freely, doesn't make it reality, just makes it popular, I'm not sure what this says about the public that goes with what Fox news says but i keep thinking of WW2 propaganda, even when it came from the winners it didn't make it true...

 

 

 

Just because the crazies tune in doesn't mean that the network "fails to inform". Is CNN responsible for its crazies? You said "proportion", implying that the network with the highest number of tuned-in crazies is to be lopped off the list of legitimate outlets. So if CNN becomes the most popular outlet, you'll tune in to Fox News?

 

 

i honestly don't see it as a crazy thing, it's more of a truth thing for me... if Fox was reporting the truth with even a reasonable slant i probably still wouldn't watch it but I wouldn't be so quick to slam it.

 

Reporting a republican politician as democrat because he failed morally and then using that as a starting point to rant about liberal morals is kinds sad but pretty much representative of Fox News....

Edited July 21, 2010 by Moontanman

[ParanoiA]

Evidently it is the news of record for some in this administration. Yesterday, Shirley Sherod was fired from the USDA because she was told (Im paraphrasing)"They said I was going to be on Glen Beck tonight and they wanted me to resign". She said she pulled over to the side of the road and gave her resignation. All this over an edited tape from 25 years ago that was supposed to be aired on Fox later in the day.

 

As the dust begins to settle, the context of the full video removes most of the racist implication. There have been apologies issued to her today and the last I heard she has been offered a new position.

 

Too bad she isn't bitter like me. I'd love to read that she told them to go pound sand in their ass; that she won't work for people that won't at least stand up for her until the facts come out. There was no reason for her to have to resign so quickly - that was crap. Seriously, I read something similar - like the second phone call. That's awfully spineless. And she showed a peculiar form of class to comply too.

 

But as was said earlier...Fox news didn't fire her. And from what I gather, they didn't fan any flames either.

Edited July 21, 2010 by ParanoiA