FOX News and hate speech

[chance1]

A lot of it is people don't separate actual news reporting from commentary. Saying "President Obama visited England and Ireland last week" is reporting the news. Saying it like "The Anointed One ignored the problems at home while cavorting with royalty" is derogatory commentary.

Both MSNBC and Fox are news mixed with commentary. O'Reilly, Hannity, Olberman, Schultz are mostly commentating on the news using their biases. Rachel Maddow is more news, but with a left slant.

Glen Beck borders on hate speech, but I don't think it's actual hate. It's mostly over the top commentary to attract attention to himself. He needs to sell his books and keep the speaking fees high.

You can easily find actual hate speech on the internet.

i agree - but i put rachel in the same category as the others - she's just more adept at it - more likable (mostly)

hate speech is wishing someone death or something harmful - like hamas against the israelis, etc.

stupid speech is different

my example of sarah palin saying dopey things, inappropriate thing like "blood libel" suggests a lack of preparation, historical knowledge ...... in short smarts

 

[Kulindahr]

A lot of it is people don't separate actual news reporting from commentary. Saying "President Obama visited England and Ireland last week" is reporting the news. Saying it like "The Anointed One ignored the problems at home while cavorting with royalty" is derogatory commentary.

Both MSNBC and Fox are news mixed with commentary. O'Reilly, Hannity, Olberman, Schultz are mostly commentating on the news using their biases. Rachel Maddow is more news, but with a left slant.

Glen Beck borders on hate speech, but I don't think it's actual hate. It's mostly over the top commentary to attract attention to himself. He needs to sell his books and keep the speaking fees high.

You can easily find actual hate speech on the internet.

I can hear hate speech right down the street in front of Safeway, where the loser racists hang out and mutter about "niggers, spics, chinks, ragheads, gooks", etc. -- and those are the ones I think I understand.

From what I've heard, Fox doesn't get into hate speech, though with Beck there's certainly been speech with hate behind it. I'm thinking on sending a reply back to Rick Jacobs about hyperbole and/or exaggeration -- which doesn't help our cause.

 

[MawellEvans]

i think it should be called FOX Commentary. Not news. I've tried to watch the show. maybe get another view on things. every time someone reports anything, they follow up the clip with snide comment or roll their eyes. or cut off the guest before they can finish a statement. its ridiculous.

 

[chance1]

i think it should be called FOX Commentary. Not news. I've tried to watch the show. maybe get another view on things. every time someone reports anything, they follow up the clip with snide comment or roll their eyes. or cut off the guest before they can finish a statement. its ridiculous.

I'd like to know what "show" you're referring to

I think Fox & Friends (which is akin to the Today Show or GMA) is mind numbing for sure

but who on their news programs is rolling their eyes?

i think bret baier is good
shepard smith is good

oreilly, hannity do commentary - the latter being cartoonish but not in a good way

greta is reasonable

where is this fox hate?

 

[Joshua_me]

I think Fox & Friends is mind numbing for sure

Agreed.

It's like watch 'Barney & Co." except less intellectually taxing.

 

[Rand]

You don't need to have "hate talk" when like army sappers you attack the foundations of news coverage by lying and cheating and insinuating wrong-doing.

Sort of like John McClain smirking when he told his crowds not to get too carried away with the name-calling and racist comments.

When the Rep from Florida got nailed on seducing House Pages - they put up his picture and labeled him a Democrat. When the Senator Wide-Stance from Idaho was arrested - they put up his picture and labeled him a Democrat. I think they did the same for Governor "I'm hiking the Appalachia Trails". Of course they issued a correction much later - probably with a smirk.

Damage done. Lies told.


Rand

 

[JB3]

You don't need to have "hate talk" when like army sappers you attack the foundations of news coverage by lying and cheating and insinuating wrong-doing.

Sort of like John McClain smirking when he told his crowds not to get too carried away with the name-calling and racist comments.

When the Rep from Florida got nailed on seducing House Pages - they put up his picture and labeled him a Democrat. When the Senator Wide-Stance from Idaho was arrested - they put up his picture and labeled him a Democrat. I think they did the same for Governor "I'm hiking the Appalachia Trails". Of course they issued a correction much later - probably with a smirk.

Damage done. Lies told.


Rand

Which has what, exactly, to do with the topic at hand?

 

[Jack Springer]

I watch Fox, MSNBC, and CNN. I can differentiate opinion from news. Fox is biased, so is MSNBC. But I don't hear hate speech. I hear things that are marginally offensive. I do tend to hear offensive things from pundits that I do not agree with more than those I agree with. I think that is human nature and safe to absolve the digressions of those you agree with at the same time hold firm against those that you don't.

When challenged about the wrong actions of those you support it feels safe to point out the other side does it or did it too, as if the opponent's wrong justifies your person's wrong actions. This puzzles me. I catch myself doing it all the time, and I hate it when I do it.

Pretty much agree with you. I would say that CNN is also biased.

Current hate speaker is the Schutz guy .. and he's on his way out. Beck is just plain weird -- that happens with the converted Mormons that I've known ... he's on his way out too.

With the entry of Fox News there is more balance (but more needed) at CNN and the public networks -- which is a good thing.

Regular people wanted to hear more than one side of an issue. Fox News has done a good job at doing that.

 

[andysayshi]

Jack, if you can't see the total, unerring bias of Fox in ALL it does, you're just not looking. There is unwelcome bias in much of the US media, but Fox is by far the worst of it I've seen.

 

[MawellEvans]

I'd like to know what "show" you're referring to

I think Fox & Friends (which is akin to the Today Show or GMA) is mind numbing for sure

but who on their news programs is rolling their eyes?

i think bret baier is good
shepard smith is good

oreilly, hannity do commentary - the latter being cartoonish but not in a good way

greta is reasonable

where is this fox hate?

um,Fox News is Fox News. the one with the blond ex-miss something. http://youtu.be/Dqo2_6HLGR0

 

[andysayshi]

Interesting article about Fox in this month's Rolling Stone magazine.

(Fox) is one of the most powerful political machines in American history. One that plays a leading role in defining Republican talking points and advancing the agenda of the far right. Fox News tilted the electoral balance to George W. Bush in 2000, prematurely declaring him president in a move that prompted every other network to follow suit. It helped create the Tea Party, transforming it from the butt of late-night jokes into a nationwide insurgency capable of electing U.S. senators. Fox News turbocharged the Republican takeover of the House last fall, and even helped elect former Fox News host John Kasich as the union-busting governor of Ohio – with the help of $1.26 million in campaign contributions from News Corp. And by incubating a host of potential GOP contenders on the Fox News payroll– including Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum – Ailes seems determined to add a fifth presidential notch to his belt in 2012. "Everything Roger wanted to do when he started out in politics, he’s now doing 24/7 with his network," says a former News Corp. executive. "It’s come full circle."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-roger-ailes-built-the-fox-news-fear-factory-20110525




This is a show-by-show breakdown showing how the programming of each day is spun around specific current GOP talking points.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/distort-attack-repeat-20110524?page=1

 

[thevofl]

Interesting article about Fox in this month's Rolling Stone magazine.



http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-roger-ailes-built-the-fox-news-fear-factory-20110525




This is a show-by-show breakdown showing how the programming of each day is spun around specific current GOP talking points.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/distort-attack-repeat-20110524?page=1

And Rolling Stone is unbiased?

But on the topic, where is the hate speech? They have ties to the GOP. They spew GOP talking points, or talking points for the GOP. Where does the hate speech come in?

 

[Joshua_me]

I would say that CNN is also biased.

I honestly don't see how anyone can call CNN "biased". If anything, the reasons their ratings are suffering is because of their straight down the middle reporting. There's not a lot of controversy there. I think Anderson Cooper is one of the the most straight forward (ha ! the irony) reporters on television. He's as quick to dis the right wing as he is the left.

If Fox leaned any further to the right, my TV would slide right off of it's stand while I was watching it. Again, this is fine, but don't advertise yourself as "fair and balanced". Anyone with half a brain and a trace of honesty knows this is simply not true.

Conversely, MSNBC, the news channel I watch most often admittedly leans slightly to the left, (but not nearly as far right as FOX). But, as I watch Rachael Maddow, (who the right loves to bash) I listen closely to what she says and I don't hear any lies coming out of her mouth. She's had plenty of negative things to say about Obama, and about the Democratic party in general. How does that make her "liberal" ?

 

[andysayshi]

And Rolling Stone is unbiased?

Perhaps. But in past months they've written scathing articles about the current administration. At least they show no favour.

It's deeply concerning that, in any discussion of US media bias, the answer is almost always "But the other side are just the same", rather than "yes, bias is really bad."

But on the topic, where is the hate speech? They have ties to the GOP. They spew GOP talking points, or talking points for the GOP. Where does the hate speech come in?

You must be skimming. I already said twice in this thread that Fox don't engage in hate speech. So have others, including the guy who started the thread.

RS's article is an interesting read considering the topic. As I said.

 

[thevofl]

RS's article is an interesting read considering the topic. As I said.

OK. 'Nuff said.

 

[Joshua_me]

And Rolling Stone is unbiased?

Listen.

Rolling Stone is one of the last places I would have gone to for insightful, straightforward information just a couple of years ago.

But, Matt Taibbi has proven himself to be an excellent journalist and reporter, and most of his work that has appeared in Rolling Stone has been above reproach.

You owe it to yourself to track down his writings.

The *honest* truth you'll read no where else appears in Rolling Stone, of all places.

Go figure.

 

[thevofl]

Listen.

Rolling Stone is one of the last places I would have gone to for insightful, straightforward information just a couple of years ago.

But, Matt Taibbi has proven himself to be an excellent journalist and reporter, and most of his work that has appeared in Rolling Stone has been above reproach.

You owe it to yourself to track down his writings.

The *honest* truth you'll read no where else appears in Rolling Stone, of all places.

Go figure.

I will give him a read, but calling his work "*honest" truth" already casts a negative light on it.

 

[CowboyBob]

Pretty much agree with you. I would say that CNN is also biased.

Current hate speaker is the Schutz guy .. and he's on his way out. Beck is just plain weird -- that happens with the converted Mormons that I've known ... he's on his way out too.

With the entry of Fox News there is more balance (but more needed) at CNN and the public networks -- which is a good thing.

Regular people wanted to hear more than one side of an issue. Fox News has done a good job at doing that.

This is laughable.

CNN is not biased. Just because they aren't pro right wing doesn't mean they're biased. This is the classic "if you're not for us you're against us" thinking.

Ed Schultz is no more hateful than O"Reilly and Hannity. You say that because you agree with Hannity & O'Reilly and disagree with Schultz.

After watching Fox do their so called reporting about the Madison Wisconsin protests in the capitol, that was pure Republican propaganda. They were using phrases like "The brave Republican governor" and the "union thugs". You don't hear even MSNBC talk like that. Fox does NOT balance out the other networks. They take it to a different level.

You don't see the entire Democratic party on MSNBC's payroll as you see the entire Republican party on Fox's payroll. Palin, Huckabee, Santorum, Gingrich.... all under the careful watch of Roger Ailes.

 

[chance1]

Ed Schultz is no more hateful than O"Reilly and Hannity. You say that because you agree with Hannity & O'Reilly and disagree with Schultz.

After watching Fox do their so called reporting about the Madison Wisconsin protests in the capitol, that was pure Republican propaganda. They were using phrases like "The brave Republican governor" and the "union thugs". You don't hear even MSNBC talk like that. Fox does NOT balance out the other networks. They take it to a different level.

You don't see the entire Democratic party on MSNBC's payroll as you see the entire Republican party on Fox's payroll. Palin, Huckabee, Santorum, Gingrich.... all under the careful watch of Roger Ailes.

Couple things
Schultz is much more volatile than O'Reilly and Hannity
Using terms much more extreme and nasty
Hannity is a talking points clown - does not use inappropriate references - IMO it's like he's strictly in it for the fame money etc

As for ex politicians on a payroll IMO that is much more transparent than MSNBCs model which is primarily journalists like Howard fineman or Eugene Robinson chatting AS IF they were not attached to the liberal tit

Just saying

 

[chrisrobin]

Current hate speaker is the Schutz guy.

Did you mean Schutzstaffel?

Regular people wanted to hear more than one side of an issue.

The ones that take Metamucil? To hear more than one side of an issue, there are those that examine multiple sources. We used to call this research. After the research is done, one engages in thought. Sometimes thought results in excruciating pain.
After I've have a good B.M., I'll go after multiple sources and draw my own conclusions. I don't need FOX or MSNBC do my excruciatingly painful thinking for me, the masochist that I am. I don't even need this forum!