Do you believe there is a leftist bias

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

After looking at that site, it seems like "Fair" is simply the name of the site and nothing more.

I'll admit that stuff like this:

Since its 1996 launch, Fox has become a central hub of the conservative movement's well-oiled media machine. Together with the GOP organization and its satellite think tanks and advocacy groups, this network of fiercely partisan outlets--such as the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and conservative talk-radio shows like Rush Limbaugh's--forms a highly effective right-wing echo chamber where GOP-friendly news stories can be promoted, repeated and amplified. Fox knows how to play this game better than anyone.

 

sounds biased, but you can't deny that someone didn't say what they said or that, say, Roger Ailes didn't work for the Bush campaign when he clearly did.

 

You want to say Fox is better than the other channels, fine. I think you're stupid, personally, but you have a right to be. To say that it's actually politically equal is a pure lie though.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

This is what I said ...

 

"Sure, I'll buy into the fact that Fox is a tad on the conservative side but they are a lot more moderate than any other channel out there."

And I have to say, "LOL."

 

I mean, cmon, they market the Weekly Standard, a Conservative rag. They know who their audience is.

[cawthon777 0]

Please, don't compair O'Reilly to Ventura. That is an insult towards Ventura. And you forgot Tony Snow. Not to mention all the guests they have.

What I meant by that, if it wasn't clear, was that O'Reilly has both conservative and liberal values. He's just a very opinionated moderate.

 

I don't really see Tony Snow as an "outspoken" conservative personality on the network, although yes he does share those values.

 

As far as guests, the only conservative guests that appear without some sort of liberal opposition would be the military analysts. And they don't really comment on politics.

[cawthon777 0]

This is what I said ...

 

"Sure, I'll buy into the fact that Fox is a tad on the conservative side but they are a lot more moderate than any other channel out there."

And I have to say, "LOL."

 

I mean, cmon, they market the Weekly Standard, a Conservative rag. They know who their audience is.

And several of their on-air personalities also regularly appear on NPR, the PBS of radio.

[cawthon777 0]

To say that it's actually politically equal is a pure lie though.

Never said it was.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Bill O'Reilly himself admits he's a conservative.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

I think one of the editors or columnist of Fair and Accuracy was a former panel member on Fox Media Watch. He was very liberal and I think might be on MSNBC.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Vern, I don't think the point was ever that they don't have a few liberals... and I don't think anyone denies that several liberal sources also have a few conservatives.

[cawthon777 0]

Bill O'Reilly himself admits he's a conservative.

Actually he refutes that just about every day on his radio and TV show.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

OReilly is, for all legal purposes, an Independant. He was exposed as a Republican by somebody and he switched.

 

On the political spectrum, though, he's a populist. One with a short level of tolerance and a kind of shitty research team. In the Chuckabilly story he was still going on about the Lionel Tate case after the PTC went about their apology and the evidence was thrown out.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

I love how people see Fox News as this out of control right-wing machine. Fox and their analysts/reporters tend to be the most pro-American and conservative out of all the networks. Conservative, not in the religious sense, but conservative in the classical sense. Meaning that they support protecting the customs, values and policies that have made America the country that it is. Now, shouldn't THIS be the moderate starting point in journalism? Instead they're regarded as the biased freak network. That right there shows that there's a slight left of center tilt for the rest of the media. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I think one of the editors or columnist of Fair and Accuracy was a former panel member on Fox Media Watch. He was very liberal and I think might be on MSNBC.

I think he was on Brit Hume's panel or something at the end of his show. I know I've seen him on there before.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I love how people see Fox News as this out of control right-wing machine. Fox and their analysts/reporters tend to be the most pro-American and conservative out of all the networks. Conservative, not in the religious sense, but conservative in the classical sense. Meaning that they support protecting the customs, values and policies that have made America the country that it is. Now, shouldn't THIS be the moderate starting point in journalism? Instead they're regarded as the biased freak network. That right there shows that there's a slight left of center tilt for the rest of the media. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

And yet, look at the irony.

 

Look what thread you're posting in right now,

[Guest DrTom]

What is the real differance between "strongly agreeing/disagreeing" and just "agreeing/disagreeing"? I ask you, DrTom, seeing as how I consider you to be intelligent.

This is going to be speculation, seeing as I didn't design the test and all. Nor have I designed any test remotely like it, but anyway.

 

I would imagine your score -- in this case, the points on your graph -- are determined by the points you accrue answering the questions. The middle answer may be worth 0 points, Agree and Disagree 3 each, and their Strongly variants 5 each. The theory is that "strongly" opinions indicate a more definite leaning one way or the other, and also sniff out extremist points of view.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

I love how people see Fox News as this out of control right-wing machine.  Fox and their analysts/reporters tend to be the most pro-American and conservative out of all the networks.  Conservative, not in the religious sense, but conservative in the classical sense. Meaning that they support protecting the customs, values and policies that have made America the country that it is.  Now, shouldn't THIS be the moderate starting point in journalism?  Instead they're regarded as the biased freak network.  That right there shows that there's a slight left of center tilt for the rest of the media.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.

And yet, look at the irony.

 

Look what thread you're posting in right now,

What irony, I don't get what you're saying?

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Actually, I rather like having a media that is skeptical against the government. I think it's a good thing, since I think the public needs to keep a careful eye on their officials. It's a good thing, for both parties. You guys think Clinton wouldn't be a laughingstock and an official impeachment if it weren't for the media's exposure of what he was doing on government time?

 

Right now, Fox is a "BUSH = PATRIOTISM = GOOD" show, and I remember getting sick of that stuff a year ago. When Clinton was leaving though, they were viciously beating their opinions over the head of the viewer.

 

During Clinton's departure, I switched over to Fox for 30 seconds for the first time, as I had heard it was right-slanted and never gave it a chance. I heard a bunch of broadcasters basically all saying "I'm not shedding any tears" and they all kind of chuckled and admitted that they had nobody at their table who had any positive comments to make about Clinton.

 

Okay, fine. I'll forgive that some of these people are supposed to be considered journalits, but then they went further by saying "But, but, imagine you're someone who believes in what this man says..." as though Clinton was some kind of Jim Jones or something.

 

Now that a good deal more people are watching them, they seem to be more discreet in it. Jeneane Garafalo wanted to take some more time with inspectors before heading off to war on a Fox weekend show, and the woman hosting the show blew her off with "Okay, so we sit around and wait for the next 9/11." Now, we have a thread already going about Garafalo & Company, but the host made a black & white issue out of her shade of gray, and basically was shitting on her opinion.

 

 

...Anyway, appearantly Fox News is the standard for what out standing patriots we should be. Fine. Nobody call me a Bush Hater, because I support George W Bush just like how Fox News supported Bill Clinton.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

You're vehemently defending the conservative 'bias', and yet completely disputing us when we say the liberal bias is rather minimal.

 

It's ironic how quickly you guys (general term, I know) label the media liberal, but then defend the hell out of your Faux boys when they come under fire.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

...Anyway, appearantly Fox News is the standard for what out standing patriots we should be. Fine. Nobody call me a Bush Hater, because I support George W Bush just like how Fox News supported Bill Clinton.

Why don't you support George W Bush? Is it because he has an R next to his name?

[Guest Olympic Slam]

You're vehemently defending the conservative 'bias', and yet completely disputing us when we say the liberal bias is rather minimal.

 

It's ironic how quickly you guys (general term, I know) label the media liberal, but then defend the hell out of your Faux boys when they come under fire.

The media is liberal. Fox news just has a conservative (America first) tone by comparison. I'm neither defending it or supporting it. There's a difference between a particular tone and an all out bias. Fox New's look, voice, and tone is biased by COMPARISON. Tone does not equal bias. Bias is ripping apart Trent Lott (as ALL networks did) and then not even mentioning Senator Patty Murray's remarks about the humanitarian Osama-Bin Laden. 30 years ago, Fox News would have easily been the defined "centrist" starting point for journalism. Times have changed and the definition of "center" has moved further left.

 

To say Fox News has a conservative tone to it is to admit that the rest of the media is farther to the left of it. Otherwise, Fox News would not stand out from the crowd.

[Guest JMA]

Why don't you support George W Bush? Is it because he has an R next to his name?

I don't support him because I don't like his opinions on issues like abortion, gay rights, and the death penalty. I also don't think he is qualified enough to be our President. I lean to the Left, I admit, but this is the way I truly feel. It isn't because he's a Republican either. Today most people group Republicans and conservatives into the same category. That's very inaccurate. We used to have a good amount of moderate and liberal Republicans. My favorite President was Lincoln himself (who founded the GOP). Right now the majority of the party are just shills for Bush.

 

There are, however, some guys who stick to their beliefs and are guys I can respect (like Frisk and McCain). But, anyways, your question was not to me.

[Guest JMA]

The media is liberal. Fox news just has a conservative (America first) tone by comparison. I'm neither defending it or supporting it. There's a difference between a particular tone and an all out bias. Fox New's look, voice, and tone is biased by COMPARISON. Tone does not equal bias. Bias is ripping apart Trent Lott (as ALL networks did) and then not even mentioning Senator Patty Murray's remarks about the humanitarian Osama-Bin Laden. 30 years ago, Fox News would have easily been the defined "centrist" starting point for journalism. Times have changed and the definition of "center" has moved further left.

 

To say Fox News has a conservative tone to it is to admit that the rest of the media is farther to the left of it. Otherwise, Fox News would not stand out from the crowd.

I'd say the current CNN is the most moderate news channel. I don't think the media is "liberal." I think a lot of people are generalized as being liberals because they have differant beliefs from conservatives. I do, however, they most stations at least try to be fair. Fox News would not be one of those stations.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

I'd say the current CNN is the most moderate news channel. I don't think the media is "liberal." I think a lot of people are generalized as being liberals because they have differant beliefs from conservatives. I do, however, they most stations at least try to be fair. Fox News would not be one of those stations.

There are very few conservative Republicans left in any major political position. Of course the media is liberal, the definition of center has changed over the years to fit that. Bush would have been a great Democrat back in the 50's for example.

[Guest JMA]

There are very few conservative Republicans left in any major political position. Of course the media is liberal, the definition of center has changed over the years to fit that. Bush would have been a great Democrat back in the 50's for example.

Also, don't forget that Reagan was a Democrat before he held a political office. I, howver, think that some people like Hannity and Coulter simply use the word "liberals" to villainize people they don't like and to sell books.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

OK, so we use a soure from the left-leaning FAIR to say Fox News is conservative.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

Caw, I watch Brit's panel discussion every day -- it's my favorite part of the show. I can't remember hearing Brit take up a liberal cause during that segment. For the most part, that panel discussion is balanced. Fred Barnes (conservative), Mort (who I consider to be in the middle) and Mara L. (liberal). However, when Mara or Mort isn't there, it seems that the conservative side gets the extra person. I personally like it when it's the three of them. I read FAIR's bit about the panel, and it's laughable. I loved this quote:

 

"But her liberalism consists of little more than being a woman who works for National Public Radio; she has proposed that "one of the roots of the problem with education today is feminism" (Talk of the Nation, 5/3/01); she declares that "Jesse Jackson gets away with a lot of things that other people don't" (Special Report, 6/21/00); she calls George W. Bush's reversal on carbon dioxide emissions "a small thing" (3/14/01), campaign finance reform "an issue that . . . only 200 people in America care about" (3/19/01) and slavery reparations "pretty much of a non-issue" (3/19/01)."

 

OH NO! SHE HAS INDIVIDUAL THOUGHTS! RED FLAG THIS! BTW, in my opinion, she's right on all these, and just because she said these things doesn't mean she may agree with them. I've noticed she'll give her opinion on an issue and then say what the public thinks about the issue.

 

Oh, they also talked about the Grapevine. I agree with FAIR's statement on this more than the panel. I also love this part of the show because they produce some funny sh*t. And they have blasted Republicans on this segment. Sorry I didn't jot down any examples -- I didn't know that I'd be forced to bring up specific examples.

 

(I have to admit I marked out when they recently brought up that Pat Leahy quote from a few years ago saying he'll fight any attempt to filibuster a judicial candidate of any party affiliation. This is also the man who, back in the Clinton years, whined about there being a judical crisis in regards to the number of empty seats. I guess they are all filled now.)

 

The Colmes part of the article was a joke, too. He has admitted countless times on that show he's a liberal. And for the record, I find him more open-minded that Hannity. Colmes doesn't agree with EVERY liberal side they debate -- I guess this makes him moderate in the eyes of some.

 

Tony Snow -- where do I begin? Yes, he is a fill-in host for Rush. But I guess if he's not allowed to do hard news then people like George Steph-something or other should be off the air on ABC, too. (Something I really don't want to happen in either case.)

 

Like I said earlier Caw, don't bother debating Faux News at this place. Let the grumbling go untouched and just roll your eyes. It'll make your time here more well-spent.

 

PS: And the Left Wing NEVER uses the word "conservative" to villianize people. Both sides do it *falls to the ground shaking from the heart attack I got when realizing that both sides villianize the other*...

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I could only read about a third of that because it turned into some Republican fantasy and my eyes started to roll back into my head.

 

However, before that, you had some valid points here and there. But the simple fact is that you're trying to defend FNC, which is becoming a parody of itself ultra-fast.

 

It's like your trying to defend Steve Austin during his "WHAT WHAT WHAT WHAT" months by talking about what a draw he is. It just doesn't work. =b

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"I could only read about a third of that because it turned into some Republican fantasy and my eyes started to roll back into my head.

 

However, before that, you had some valid points here and there. But the simple fact is that you're trying to defend FNC, which is becoming a parody of itself ultra-fast."

 

Woah, woah, woah. I'm not defending ANYTHING. The only time I would defend something is if I get paid for it. I'm just giving my opinion on shows/people I've watched for the past 4/5 years.

 

I just re-read my post looking for my Republican fantasy, and I noticed that I said the liberals there (moderates for some, I guess) were more open-minded that their conservative counterparts. Personally, I enjoy listening to them more a lot of the time. Should I shred my Rush Limbaugh/Newt Gingrich/And Friends membership card now?...

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

...Anyway, appearantly Fox News is the standard for what out standing patriots we should be. Fine. Nobody call me a Bush Hater, because I support George W Bush just like how Fox News supported Bill Clinton.

Why don't you support George W Bush? Is it because he has an R next to his name?

No. It's not just because of the R next to his name. I voted a whole bunch of Rs in the last election. It meant very little, because this is California and we either vote VERY left or VERY right, and we're currently in a left phase, but I voted for plenty of R-peoples anyway.

 

I don't support GW because:

 

* The American people have no idea what the extents are of the "War on Terror." At first we were going for a guerilla terrorist cell. After we decided we did all we could on that front, we're going after a dictatorship government. What are we considering victory here? If you want to fight until every country is quiet and nobody has any problems, that could be a neverending war.

 

* Lowering the threshold of nuclear arms. Currently NOBODY with nuke capability wants to fire them (possibly excepting North Korea.) What kind of message do we send using nuke-powered bunker busters and "small-arms" nuclears? More importantly, what kind of message do we send by using them pre-emptively?

 

* Risking personal liberties with the Patriot Act. John Ashcroft does enough things to make a list of his own.

 

This is just scratching the surface, although they're the complaints that I care about the most.

[Guest JMA]

Weren't the terrorist training camps in Iraq in Kurdish controlled territory anyways?

[cawthon777 0]

I don't support GW because:

 

* The American people have no idea what the extents are of the "War on Terror." At first we were going for a guerilla terrorist cell. After we decided we did all we could on that front, we're going after a dictatorship government. What are we considering victory here? If you want to fight until every country is quiet and nobody has any problems, that could be a neverending war.

 

* Risking personal liberties with the Patriot Act. John Ashcroft does enough things to make a list of his own.

 

This is just scratching the surface, although they're the complaints that I care about the most.

We're going after Saddam because he has been a threat to America (to a degree) since the Gulf War, can easily pass on his little toys (which he does have) to others who want us all dead, preaches hate and death to all Americans, and practices genocide. Oh yeah, he's also failed to follow the terms of his surrender in the 12 years since the Gulf War. He also shoots at American aircraft on a daily basis (another violation of his surrender) and, in over a decade, was only able to shoot down a small unmaned surveilance plane.

 

I'm not a big fan of potential loss of liberties either. No one is. And I believe there are more than enough gung-ho Constitutionalists out there who will literally wage war on DC if they feel the government is walking all over them. That's why I'm not overly concerned about the issue. The goal of every presidency is to win reelection. Bush knows that threatening personal freedom will not get him another 4 years - that's why he won't do it (not that I'm sure he wants to). 9/11 fucked up a lot of things. Where do personal liberties end and personal safety begin?

[Guest Some Guy]

Personal note: I don't believe CNN is biased much, if at all, either.

 

However, for the sake of this completely stupid argument, I'm willing to "concede" that CNN is biased if this moron finally coughs up and admits that his happy society of friends over at Faux are biased.

He did in the post directly above the one I quoted. What is your fucking problem? He states an opinio, that Fox News is Conservative but he see them as rather moderate and you call him a "moron" and "ignorant." When did he personally attack you? Cut the shit and grow up. Dispute his opinions, don't shit on him when you have absolutely no way of knowing his intelligence. It goes right back to that, "He doesn't agree with me, so he *MUST* be stupid."

 

The bias of a network should be looked at more in the way that they report news on their straight news broadcasts. O'reilly, Donahue, and Connie Chung are paid to do an editorial show. Their opinion is what people watch or don't watch for. But if we are going to look at bias in this way then I think unitl recently at least Fox had far more Liberals than CNN and MSNBC. I wonder why MSNBC hired Buchahon and Scarbourough (otr however ytou spell his name)? You think that they reazlize that the people want the conservative and liberal standpoint? I do. And if we're still lokking at the bias in this way, then Fox/O'Reilly=Conservative, CNN/Connie Chung=Liberal, MSNBC/Donahue=Socialist. All teh networks are biased one way or another. It comes from the top down. The station hires who they think will report the news the way they think it should be reported, if they don't they'll be labeled a "maverick" or some such nonsence. But, let's look at the title of the thread "Replying to Do you believe there is a leftist bias". Now tell me why people keep harping on Fox News in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with them? They have a conservative tilt, the thread is about liberal bias in the media. To bring up Fox as your answer is silly and shows that you have very little to base your beliefs that the others aren't liberal.

 

Someone, maybe on this board, I don't rememer said something like, "How can Bernie Goldberg write a book on the liberal bias of the media and not mention Fox News' conservative bias?" Well, I don't know, maybe because the book (just like this thread) is about LIBERAL BIAS, not conservative bias. Start a thread called "Does Fox News have a conservative bias" and then discuss it. I bet if you start that thread it'll be you liberals pissing and moaning and the conservatives saying, "Yeah, they do." We aren't in denial.