Murdoch Meltdown

[DanaC]

I think that's probably a fair point about Merc actually. His was just the name that came to mind as a vocal defender of Fox.

I don't think it's fair to say it's just about whether a programme/show, or newspaper fits your views as to whether it seems biased though. The Times is absolutely on the other side of the political fence from me, but it is a good paper with quality journalism (most of the time). The Mirror is a left wing tabloid, supportive of unions, anti-Iraq war, pro Labour Party til they moved to the Right and very much in line with my opinions: but it's a fucking rag of a paper and I can't remember the last time it engaged in any real journalism.

The problem with Fox isn't just the bias (though that does seem absoutely blatant), it's the way it presents news.

In Britain, TV news is usually pretty balanced. There are some mild biases but they are very heavily regulated. The newspapers however have been left almost to their own devices and the result is the tabloid press. Fox news is like our tabloid press. Unaccountable, peddles lies and innuendo, engages in media vendettas against individuals and organisations, sells itself for political influence.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I don't think it's fair to say it's just about whether a programme/show, or newspaper fits your views as to whether it seems biased though.

Of course, that is why I made a relative not an absolute statement, but it does have a large influence. Most people in the US are aware that FOX has a conservative slant while MSNBC has a liberal slant but will usually only apply the biased label to the ones they disagree with. Its just an emotional reaction since we generally don't like to admit that we personally are wrong or biased.

The problem with Fox isn't just the bias (though that does seem absoutely blatant), it's the way it presents news.

I agree with this 100%.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by DanaC

The problem with Fox isn't just the bias (though that does seem absolutely blatant), it's the way it presents news.

At least it IS blatant and right there versus misrepresenting itself as unbiased which the others do.


Their morning show presentation is pitiful & their hosts are frighteningly pathetic.
All three of them smarmy looking ...just ewwwwww...

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I think that's probably a fair point about Merc actually. His was just the name that came to mind as a vocal defender of Fox.

I don't think it's fair to say it's just about whether a programme/show, or newspaper fits your views as to whether it seems biased though. The Times is absolutely on the other side of the political fence from me, but it is a good paper with quality journalism (most of the time). The Mirror is a left wing tabloid, supportive of unions, anti-Iraq war, pro Labour Party til they moved to the Right and very much in line with my opinions: but it's a fucking rag of a paper and I can't remember the last time it engaged in any real journalism.

The problem with Fox isn't just the bias (though that does seem absoutely blatant), it's the way it presents news.

In Britain, TV news is usually pretty balanced. There are some mild biases but they are very heavily regulated. The newspapers however have been left almost to their own devices and the result is the tabloid press. Fox news is like our tabloid press. Unaccountable, peddles lies and innuendo, engages in media vendettas against individuals and organisations, sells itself for political influence.

Fair enough. I listen to BBC World News on a regular basis as well, and when I lived in NJ I bought the Village Voice every week. I still buy the NYTimes when ever I travel, but I also buy a WSJ as well. I try to read all the different views, even when I disagree with them.