Congratulations Fox News on 15 Years

[Kulindahr]

WRT Jon Stewart and the Fox News claim, reading that article reminded me of a friend of my mom, who sends me political stuff every now and then. I was totally blown away yesterday when in spite of the fact that I had cited three major newspapers to show that Bush signed TARP and some other bills, she insisted they were all Obama's. I think to convince her I'm going to have to cite some right-wing Catholic newspapers......

 

[Dolmance]

^
Pretty stark comparison. Does either have any redeeming features?

"Either" refering to Fox or M.S.N.B.C, or to stars and sputtering L.E.D.s?


I must admit, I haven't seen a great deal of M.S.N.B.C; only fragments scattered around YouTube. What I've seen leads me to believe it is superior to Fox in one respect: it does not peddle the same anti-intellectual and theocratic ignorance (e.g. patent falsehoods concernong evolution etc). Even so, it's erring on the side of reporter opinion and polemic rather than stark communication of facts means that, like Fox, it is attempting to garner views and ratings through tribalistic chest beating. The fact that it's often on the more considered and well informed side doesn't really mean very much, insofar as I'm concerned. It still stinks of un-professionalism and is corrosive to anything approaching ideal journalism. We do have our "talking head" news analyses here in the U.K. too, but they do genuinely represent very broard spectrums of opinion, are often moderated by impartial figures who give any and all equal treatment (REF: Jeremy Paxman, News Night), and invite criticism from audience members, via text and telephone call etc. There's also a fairly healthy tradition of the B.B.C recanting mistakes as and when they're made.

Don't get me wrong in this: I'm not blinded to the failings of the B.B.C; one of the massive ones was demonstrated when it aired Jerry Springer the Opera: since it is publically owned and funded, the organisation caved to the miniscule minority of self proclaimed christians who complained about it, and when I say miniscule, I mean a microbe on a pin head. But it is a superior news source to both, especially in combination with various other sources in order to gain a fairly balanced idea of what the facts are.

I think U.K. culture would be more sympathetic to M.S.N.B.C, simply because the rhetoric is much more in line with where U.K. culture stands. Even our conservatives are so, so far left of what you currently call conservative in the U.S. they better resemble your liberals. All of the talk of god, personal belief systems etc automatically turns U.K. audiences off, since this is a largely secular nation, and the denial of thing sushc as evolution makes us roll our eyes and laugh, since it is and has long been a generally accepted fact of nature and science by both our culture and the vast majority of our churches too.

 

[Jack Springer]

You didn't read the PolitiFact article.

They rated Stewart's claim as false.

Did you ctaully read what you posted Jack?

They found the claim false because of the phrase not because fox doesnt rank near the bottom... they do.

Please read ones own cites so as not to embarrass yourself.

But to the precise definition Stewart agreed it wasn't and retracted.

So your argument that Fox viewers are just leading the stupid comparatively and not a lot stupid wins.

 

[Kulindahr]

You didn't read the PolitiFact article.

They rated Stewart's claim as false.

I'm giving you a big F on reading comprehension here: he discusses the content of the PolitiFact article in his response.

Sheesh!

 

[JayHawk]

You didn't read the PolitiFact article.

They rated Stewart's claim as false.

Read it yourself. The post I previously made stated that due to semantics PolitiFact agreed and Stewart later agreed the claim was false because it wasnt EVERY TIME.

However the article also said repeatedly that FOX ranks low in viewer intelligence polls. Just that they do not consistantly rank low because as different polls are worded differently the data can be skewed to demonstrate some modicum of knowledge. Guess what organization conducted the polls for FOX to find out they had knowledge?

To get that answer you will hafta read your posted cite.

Sad Days.

FOX LIES

Here is a link that uses PolitiFact to provide a list of lies never retracted by your beloved "news" agency. You stand behind PolitiFact right? So ergo you must agree Fox is a lying untrusted source of propaganda for the right wing?

 

[White Eagle]

Well, I tried to catch up on this thread but got really, really bored on page 3. Chance has made this his club.
I am only gonna add this link:

http://www.philly2philly.com/politi...9/4854/fox_news_wins_lawsuit_misinform_public

Fox News Wins Lawsuit To Misinform Public – Seriously
By Randy LoBasso at 2:28 pm on Monday June 29, 2009
Coincidentally, all mainstream news organizations missed a piece of information that basically changed journalism as we knew it.

Fark.com had to bring this one to our attention. On Friday, they linked to the blog page of CeaseSPIN.org, a website “dedicated to uniting voices in support of a return to more objective, truthful, fair, balanced, relevant and representative news reporting.”

The CeaseSPIN headline gets right to the point: “Fox News gets okay to misinform public, court ruling.”

I don't know if this was previously posted, Like I said, I got really bored.

 

[CowboyBob]

Well, I tried to catch up on this thread but got really, really bored on page 3. Chance has made this his club.

I don't know if this was previously posted, Like I said, I got really bored.

It's a Cult.

 

[maxpowr9]

It's a Cult.

It's okay. He will never get into the Velvet Mafia.

 

[Jack Springer]

JayHawk, I'm sorry but you are wrong.

You need to read the PolitiFact result of why Jon Stewart was wrong -- Stewart even apologized.

EDITOR'S NOTE: On the June 21, 2011, edition of The Daily Show, Jon Stewart accepted our False verdict and apologized, saying, "I defer to (PolitiFact's) judgment and apologize for my mistake. To not do so would be irresponsible."

Here's the link again. Not sure what else I can do.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ewart-says-those-who-watch-fox-news-are-most/

Read it yourself. The post I previously made stated that due to semantics PolitiFact agreed and Stewart later agreed the claim was false because it wasnt EVERY TIME.

However the article also said repeatedly that FOX ranks low in viewer intelligence polls. Just that they do not consistantly rank low because as different polls are worded differently the data can be skewed to demonstrate some modicum of knowledge. Guess what organization conducted the polls for FOX to find out they had knowledge?

To get that answer you will hafta read your posted cite.

Sad Days.

FOX LIES

Here is a link that uses PolitiFact to provide a list of lies never retracted by your beloved "news" agency. You stand behind PolitiFact right? So ergo you must agree Fox is a lying untrusted source of propaganda for the right wing?

 

[Jack Springer]

You need to read it again too.

... just sayin'

I'm giving you a big F on reading comprehension here: he discusses the content of the PolitiFact article in his response.

Sheesh!

 

[JayHawk]

JayHawk, I'm sorry but you are wrong.

You need to read the PolitiFact result of why Jon Stewart was wrong -- Stewart even apologized.



Here's the link again. Not sure what else I can do.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ewart-says-those-who-watch-fox-news-are-most/

I have admitted TWICE now that the semantics of what stewart said was incorrect and that he SAID SO HIMSELF. SO you Sir are correct in that narrowly defined statement is not true. There is no other form of english to convey the message you are not getting.

The actual article DOES NOT say that Fox news is somehow thoroughly informing its audience. In fact it says the opposite However the statement by John Stewart that "EVERY POLL" did not indicate Fox was AS inept as a journalistic organization as indicated by the previous statements via youtube of one Mr Jon STewart. (highlighted, bolded, and color changed to identify the statement to which Stewart was required to render a retraction).

Multiple polls DID find that Fox news viewers has a skewed view of reality.

The key thing here though if you look at the FOX LIES you will see that Fox lies regularly and does not retract their statements as identified using the source you quote (none other than PolitiFact)

SO I guess what you are saying is that Jon Stewart is obviously (as a comedian) much more truthful and journalistic than FOX "news"??????????????

I guess the old saying is true:

You can lead a horse to water.............. The above statements can be referred to metaphorically as water. Please have a soul cleansing, truth enhancing drink.

 

[Kulindahr]

You need to read it again too.

... just sayin'

Are you saying you didn't discuss content of the politifact article in your response???

 

[Kulindahr]

Stewart's claim that EVERY POLL says Fox viewers are the worst informed was wrong.

But the substance was correct: Fox viewers in general tend to be average or worse. And Fox lies, and does not retract often.

 

[andysayshi]

And even more poignant - Politifact agrees that a substantial number of the polls conducted show that Fox News viewers are LESS informed than people who watch no news at all.

We discussed this a few months back when Jon Stewart listed a bunch of Politifact's claims of Fox News lies. What I posted then is just as relevant here:

Just for clarity, Jon Stewart acknowledged Politifacts' "False" vote, apologised for the mistake, and clarified his language. The problem was more that he said "every time", which Politifact showed to be false. (There was a nice irony there, considering a night earlier he'd used 21 Politifact references to show factual errors broadcast by Fox which had never been acknowledged or corrected by Fox.)

[...]

However, we can still observe what Politifact state about the summary of poll information: Fox viewers DO typically prove to be at the lower end of the "informed" scale, and on numerous occasions AT the bottom of that scale. In some polls they show equivalency with people who watch no news media at all, and in others they prove to be less informed than those who view nothing.

It's interesting to note that, after Jon Stewart took Fox to task, they immediately started attacking Stewart for being a racist. In one broadcast day, Stewart was mentioned in almost EVERY segment broadcast. This highlights the way Fox takes a talking point and runs with it, how they take a distinct bias and allow that to infect every part of their broadcasting day. It also demonstrates that their own justification for non-factual news - "some of our broadcast is opinion!" - doesn't hold up. Because they actually blur the lines between what is opinion and what is news on their network.

 

[andysayshi]

Here's another reason why Fox is bad.

Fox have given unbridled media support and coverage to the Tea Party. They've lied repeatedly about other media networks "ignoring" Tea Party demonstrations, which has been proven false by the other media outlets. They repeatedly lie about the attendance figures of Tea Party demonstrations.

Meanwhile, Fox have failed to show much if any coverage of similar and larger events, particularly when they relate to issues like gay rights.

And Fox producers were caught in 2009 committing the cardinal sin of journalism. Producers were caught on tape whipping up cheers and shouts at a Tea Party rally. This might sound unimportant, but it completely breaks the most important rule of journalism: REPORT the news, but don't INFLUENCE the news.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/19/fox-news-producer-caught_n_292529.html

 

[Críostóir]

Watching Fox not only makes you worse-informed, it makes you stupider. Studies have shown that IQs drop with ongoing Fox watching, until the habitual Fox viewer's head literally implodes from sheer negative intelligence pressure!

That's not true, of course, but it's as accurate as most Faux News reports.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's interesting to note that, after Jon Stewart took Fox to task, they immediately started attacking Stewart for being a racist. In one broadcast day, Stewart was mentioned in almost EVERY segment broadcast. This highlights the way Fox takes a talking point and runs with it, how they take a distinct bias and allow that to infect every part of their broadcasting day. It also demonstrates that their own justification for non-factual news - "some of our broadcast is opinion!" - doesn't hold up. Because they actually blur the lines between what is opinion and what is news on their network.

When an organization engages in across-the-board attacks like that, it qualifies for a label different than "news" -- "propaganda.

Watching Fox not only makes you worse-informed, it makes you stupider. Studies have shown that IQs drop with ongoing Fox watching, until the habitual Fox viewer's head literally implodes from sheer negative intelligence pressure!

That's not true, of course, but it's as accurate as most Faux News reports.

Probably not "most". A basic rule of propaganda is to adhere to the truth much or most of the time, so the distortions mixed in seem plausible.

A friend of my mom has started (God only knows why) sending me bulletins from Dick Morris. They fascinate me in their beauty: each starts with facts, then drifts to a skewed perspective, and leaves the outright lie for just before the summary. Fox knows the same rule.

 

[Jack Springer]

Last comment on this ... the PolitiFact article said that almost every news organization had viewers that were not well informed.

Why you and Kuli want to single out FNC is beyond me when you could have said the same thing about any other news source.

I have admitted TWICE now that the semantics of what stewart said was incorrect and that he SAID SO HIMSELF. SO you Sir are correct in that narrowly defined statement is not true. There is no other form of english to convey the message you are not getting.

The actual article DOES NOT say that Fox news is somehow thoroughly informing its audience. In fact it says the opposite However the statement by John Stewart that "EVERY POLL" did not indicate Fox was AS inept as a journalistic organization as indicated by the previous statements via youtube of one Mr Jon STewart. (highlighted, bolded, and color changed to identify the statement to which Stewart was required to render a retraction).

Multiple polls DID find that Fox news viewers has a skewed view of reality.

The key thing here though if you look at the FOX LIES you will see that Fox lies regularly and does not retract their statements as identified using the source you quote (none other than PolitiFact)

SO I guess what you are saying is that Jon Stewart is obviously (as a comedian) much more truthful and journalistic than FOX "news"??????????????

I guess the old saying is true:

You can lead a horse to water.............. The above statements can be referred to metaphorically as water. Please have a soul cleansing, truth enhancing drink.

 

[rareboy]

It is just that the FOXNATION sole source groupies that get every talking point from the bobbleheads on FNC are the least well informed about the truth.

And that's a fact.

 

[JayHawk]

Last comment on this ... the PolitiFact article said that almost every news organization had viewers that were not well informed.

Why you and Kuli want to single out FNC is beyond me when you could have said the same thing about any other news source.

I can understand your desire not to discuss this. I usually feel the same way when I am wrong.

And yes many Americans are fucking ignorant of the world around them and issues that affect them.

Please now point out the news agency that has a viewership who identifies ONLY XXX as their source of news.

Then please identify the news agency that has been demonstratively lying and has had it pointed out on many an occasion by reputable entities. Where that news agency then not only said "Talk to the hand" but sued in court for the right to continue passing off those lies as news?

You demonstrate to me ANY other news agency with that kind of viewership and that kind of deceit knowing they are a single source and at that point I will agree I was completely and utterly wrong and Fox isn't all that bad.

The other indicator for me that other news entities take their journalistic ethos seriously is the fact that they actually FIRE people perceived to have violated that ethos.

Name the last person fired from Fox?

And no Glenn Beck doesn't count. He wasn't renewed because he is a Jerry Springer episode mixed with a conspiracy theory.