Obama vs Fox News; does the US media have a left wing bias?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by saturn5, Oct 25, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    But that hypocrisy works both ways. Look at democrats who claim to be for "the working man" and "blue collar workers". Many of them are millionaires who have enriched themselves through the very policies they decry as "hurting the poor and favouring the rich".
  2. Game3525 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 25, 2008
    star 4
    That is true, but that isn't scandals, it is a bit differant.
  3. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    Not when you consider the problems Chris Dodd and Charlie Rangell have had. But I do agree that it isn't as full blown.
  4. Game3525 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 25, 2008
    star 4
    True, but Dodds and Rangell weren't protected by media, but by their own party.
  5. KGhobgoblin Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 5, 2009
    star 1
    Game and Shane, both good points.

    I understand the hypocrisy of supporting family values and then flagrantly violating those values but I don't think that Democrats really condone extramarital affairs. Most Democrats I know have terrific family values. I don't think "swingers" are that common, but I'm not familiar with that universe (Although I'm sure I'd have a lot to offer) [face_liarliar]. If it's not a big deal (because a Democrat affair wouldn't have the hypocrisy element of a Republican one), why report it as a story at all?

    If you listen to Dan Savage (Does the podcast on iTunes, the Savage Lovecast, and writes for the Onion), he's big on the hypocrisy of politicians preaching family values and advocating against gay marriage, but then cheating on their wives. In this sense, I wish the anti-gay marriage folks would just say their real objection: it grosses them out. At least it'd be honest and perhaps more defensible (although there're far grosser things people do in their bedrooms that don't seem to require major legislation to regulate).

    If you've never heard Dan Savage, check it out. It's raucously funny (and it's free!!!). People call in with the weirdest love/sex related questions you've ever heard of in your life and then he makes fun of them while offering guidance. Consider yourself warned, though; he's extremely anti-Republican, which might upset a lot of the people on this thread. [face_laugh]
  6. Jedi Merkurian Episode VII Thread-Reaper and Rumor Naysayer

    Manager
    Member Since:
    May 25, 2000
    star 6
    BTW, here's Sean Hannity using footage from a Glenn Beck event to make Michele Bachmann's event look bigger than it was o_O
  7. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    So this is the problem I see with Fox News. Apparently a bunch of Navy SEALs nabbed the mastermind behind the murder of those 4 Blackwater guards a while back, and they punched him in the face in the process. Now the SEALs are facing charges of assault.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576646,00.html
    http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/11/25/navy.seals.falluja/

    According to Fox, the SEALs punched Ahmed Hashim Abed and are now facing charges. Oh yeah, we also "have terrorists getting their constitutional rights in New York City, but I suspect that they?re going to deny these SEALs their right to confrontation in a military courtroom in Virginia". Apparently our patriotic servicemen are being persecuted by an anti-military liberal government.

    Now according to CNN, the SEALs punched Ahmed Hashim Abed and are now facing charges of misdemeanor, with a maximum sentence of "a year in a military prison, demotion to the lowest Navy rank, a cut in pay and a bad conduct discharge". Well, misdemeanor doesn't seem so bad. Oh wait, punching a detainee outside of an authorized interrogation isn't proper behavior, maybe something should be done to enforce discipline....maybe a minor charge of misdemeanor! And I seem to recall from various things that I've read that special forces are in extremely high demand in the war on terror, meaning they'll probably get off with just a slap on the wrist and go back to doing their jobs. Wait, what happened to the anti-military liberal government?? Now who's reporting the facts, and who's pushing an agenda?
  8. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Well, the "which network is more biased debate" has been beaten to death. The main difference that I see is that the Fox News link simply goes into much more detail, while the CNN link is a shorter snippet. Both have their own positives and negatives. But either way:

    1)The "terrorists get their rights..." sentence didn't come from Fox News itself, but it was a quote given by one of the SEAL's defense attorneys who would be understandably focused on his client. Regardless, not even Puckett's quote mentions anything about an "anti-military, liberal government," which seems to be totally made up in your post. No matter what one thinks of the news, I'd imagine everyone can differentiate between a quote given by a third party and one given by the news provider itself.

    2)The SEALS are facing between 2-3 counts each, which are the UCMJ equivalents to misdemeanors. The only difference is that the Fox News link specifically detailed the charges, but even the CNN link says that they face charge(s), which is just more vague.

    3)Above all else, all of the SEALS say that they didn't punch Abed outside of capturing him, and that he's only claiming they did after being turned over to Iraqi authorities. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but that will come out in the court martial.

    I'd say in this case, your links don't support the claims you posted above. Either that, or you simply skimmed through both of them. I think that if you went back and re-read each link with a neutral lens, you'd find that they're not that much different.
  9. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    Really, a neutral lens.

    Lets look at the headlines.

    "Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist"

    "Navy SEALs accused of punching accused Falluja plotter"

    Which one of those is neutral Mr 44? Is it the one that claims they're facing assault charges for capturing the guy?
  10. Zaz Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 11, 1998
    star 9
    Of course, there's a liberal bias. And it really doesn't matter a damn, because there's been one for decades, and I don't notice that the Republicans don't get their turn.
  11. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Farraday, at least one of the SEALs is being charged with assault, so I'm not sure where the bias is to have a headline that says "so and so charged with assault." If he was charged with adultery, then the headline would say "so and so charged with adultery." Assault here just isn't a made-up word, its simply a category under the statute- as in misdemeanor assault...misdemeanor battery...misdemeanor theft... whatever.

    I guess sure, strictly in the headlines, both are slated toward how they're both known to be slanted, but I don't see a fundamental difference. Not at least what was indicated in the initial post. It's not like the Fox link has a headline that reads:

    "SEALs PERSECUTED FOR BELIEVING IN THE USA!!"

    or

    CNN has a headline that reads:

    "HEROIC IRAQI FREEDOM FIGHTER STANDS UP TO AMERICAN BULLY"

    Again, if anything, the two links differ only that the CNN is a blurb and shorter, while the Fox link is about a page longer, so goes into more detail. Maybe CNN has a different link that's longer and fills in the details. Maybe Fox has a different link that's shorter and more vague...

    Geez- mountain meet molehill.
  12. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    Wow, you're outright lying now in your defense of the idiotic. Let clarify for everyone watching at home "Navy SEALs accused of punching accused Falluja plotter" betrays liberal bias. Why? Because... well it just does. It is a dry factual recounting of the current state, which is apparently a liberal statement.

    In contrast "Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist" contains an outright lie, easily discernible.
    Were they charged with assault for capturing a terrorist?
    No.

    It's that simple. Also note Fox takes the position that the person captured is absolutely a terrorist. After all, he was on the most wanted list so without benefit of trial he's still guilty. Tell me Mr 44 how would you feel about the headline "Rapist cop goes to trial". Is that neutral?

    Neutral lens... hah it's obvious you've never so much as looken at a journalist class in a schedule.

    Lets continue on into Fox's article, which MR 44 obviously can not discern as problematic.

    Now, many of you will have heard the expression burying the lede(note spelling). This is the idea of putting the most important news up front. Simultaneously in journalism an article is most likely to be trimmed from the end, so the less important information goes there. In a good article the importance of any information can be judged in context to how far it is into the story, where fewer readers will go.

    With this in mind, notice it is two paragraphs before the fact the issue at hand is that he may have been punched, not that he was captured. This comes after noting they're going to a court martial because they refused captains mast.

    Following this is a delightful bit of non neutral "journalism" "Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers."

    The article is actively saying they should be lauded for capturing this guy. This supposed to be a news article, not an editorial, but you sure couldn't tell that from this.

    I wonder if there are any more neutral phrases... oh hello.

    "The Fallujah atrocity came to symbolize the brutality of the enemy in Iraq" emphasis mine, obviously.

    Really? Well okay, that's Fox "journalism" for you.

    It is also amusing that in all of that Fox does not once mention the punishment they could face if found guilty. Also missing? The word misdemeanor. So Fox News has edited out anything which suggests the severity of the charges.

    Huh.

    It's... it is almost as if they're playing up the idea US service men might go to jail for arresting a terrorist. They use two quotes instead of paraphrasing. One the rather long one from the defense attorney in which he extends the idea terrorists are getting more rights than US servicemen while the second is an account which says Abed is lying. Now, again since you've apparently never taken a journalism
  13. Jedi_Master_DR Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 17, 2004
    star 1
    Personally from my viewing of the different news stations, I would say they have a bias for those viewers who have a short attention span and/or think celebrities in any field are more important then news.

    Certainly I think there is tremendous evidence that points to a top-down Republican slant and version of reality at Fox News, with the rest of the media just trying to compete for money and chasing after Fox News's ratings. I mean, what's liberal about Morning Joe on MSNBC? What's liberal about Anderson Cooper's coverage of a random celebrity? How is in not obvious that Fox News and MSNBC from at least 8-10 PM on weeknights is the Op-Ed prime time lineup?
  14. shinjo_jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 5
    So, the Navy SEALs are facing assault charges for simply capturing him or because they punched him, which is apparently against the law? The first headline isn't even true.

    There's a difference between getting assault charges for capturing someone and because you punched them. The first one associated the charges with simply capturing a suspected terrorist, which is an outright lie.
  15. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Farraday, I don't care all that much about Fox News or CNN, and my point was that I don't see all that much bias in either link beyond the mechanical differences that I already pointed out..

    But I do know that you're squarely in that "I just banged my thumb while typing this, so I lash out against anyone who disagrees with me..." mode, so whatever I post won't be good enough.

    I capitulate. Whatever you see is obviously there. What now? Should we all meet to go burn down the Fox News headquarters while singing Kumbaya? 2 for 1 eye gougings to wipe away all traces of that foul, evil link? What?
  16. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    You don't see bias because you don't think it exists and you have no clue what it's supposed to look like. I don't particularly like cubist paintings and I can't tell the difference between an amateur and Picasso. that doesn't mean Picasso's work is terrible and I certainly don't go around telling people that there's no difference.

    You've gone from stage 1 "well there's no problem" to stage two "well whats the big deal" to stage 3 "well I don't see you doing anything about it" in 3 posts. Well done. Now move on to stage 4 Learning what you're talking about before posting next time.
  17. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    There are, of course, other options, but none that are worth it right now.

    I just hope that you put the hammer away soon. At this rate, you won't have any fingers left, and I'd imagine all that smashing really has to hurt.
  18. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    So, is being passive aggressive a bonus in your line of work?

    No really, either make an actual response or stop, since it's fairly obvious it's your feelings that are hurt since you can't let it go.

    Respond to any of the points Mr 44, any of them. Deal in facts and stop your pointless sniping. I know you want to believe I give a flying **** about your and your hurt feelings when you are shown to be so pathetically wrong you resort to this sort of passive aggressive chicanery.

    Whatever Mr. 44, we can resume when you decide to react like a grown up.
  19. Jedi_Master_DR Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 17, 2004
    star 1
    I have an easy option. Instead of calling it Fox News, we just call it Fox Opinion because that's what it is. Simple enough?
  20. anidanami124 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 24, 2002
    star 6
    While we are at name changes we might as well rename MSNBC the opinion network because that'a all they are to. Oh wait they are for Obama so they are a real news network. :rolleyes:
  21. Jedi_Master_DR Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 17, 2004
    star 1
    Well considering Fox Opinion basically kicked Alan Colmes off the Hannity Show, while MSNBC has kept Morning Joe, FO comes off a little worse then MSNBC on that one. And I would also consider Fox Opinion, Fox Business Network, CNBC, talk radio, and the conservative blogs plenty of representation for the most far right politcal party and base in the industrialized world.

    So sure, knock yourself out and call MSNBC whatever you want. I just hope you occasionally will venture into the land of facts and consume the news occasionally, not just infotainment.




    This message brought to you by ACORN and SEIU, taking over America, one spy within government at a time. :)
  22. anidanami124 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 24, 2002
    star 6
    What makes you think I'm talking about Sean Hannity but if you are going to bring him up.

    Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow are nothing more then talking heads just like Sean Hannity. They are giving there opinions and it's not news either. Oh but wait they like Obama so they most be telling the truth. :rolleyes:
  23. Jedi_Master_DR Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 17, 2004
    star 1
    First, I definitely agree with those MSNBC hosts as a liberal, that's true. But let's look at the slogans, "The Place for Politics," which certainly allows opinion versus "Fair and Balanced," and we "We Report You Decide."

    Furthermore MSNBC has programming from NBC with real journalists, like Brian Williams. You're telling me that Chris Wallace is a real journalist? Or Brit Hume? Megan Kelley?

    I will concede the point that we will not come to an agreement on Fox Opinion bias versus MSNBC and what each channel claims. Therefore, how about we talk about your criticisms about Mr. Obama. I'm interested in what you have to say (or type as the case may be here).

    EDIT: And certainly talk about the rest of the media besides just MSNBC and Fox. I want to see this alleged conclusive liberal bias of the media.
  24. heels1785 Jedi Draft Commissioner

    Game Host
    Member Since:
    Dec 10, 2003
    star 6
    That's a big statement. I don't see that you provided any reasoning or logic behind what qualifies Mr. Williams as a "real" journalist and what disqualifies Mr. Hume and Mr. Wallace, in particular. Both current FOX contributors worked for ABC, and Mr. Wallace for NBC as well. If you are stating that their current affiliation with FOX somehow discredits them as journalists, that's your opinion, and certainly one shared by many, but also one that is difficult to prove.

    I'd like you to elaborate on your definition of "real journalist" please, and what exactly separates a Brian Williams from a Brit Hume, other than their alleged political leanings.
  25. Jedi_Master_DR Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 17, 2004
    star 1
    The ability to ask a follow-up question? Not giving these advertisement puff piece interviews with figures like Rush Limbaugh would also help. The ability to make critiques and ask questions of the Obama administration policy that are substantive and legitimate, versus talking about bowing to the Japanese emperor is so horrible when Bush 43 had difficulty stringing 4 sentences together?

    As for their working for ABC, my thoughts on that are, they were really good at reading a teleprompter apparently because their real opinions and leading questions emerged at Fox news. And of course we can watch clip after clip of their bias off Youtube or Media Matters. Or how about their decision to cover ACORN as if it is a legitimate issue, yet climate change isn't? Would you like to count how many times they use the phrase "the liberal mainstream media" without any proof or basis in fact? But of course on Fox "News", they're fighting the global media conspiracy of liberal elites trying to control and lie to us all. Or maybe eat our brains? They're only asking, we report, you decide.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.