The demise of journalistic integrity

[gr8indoorsman]

As I've watched some cable news programming recently, read in my daily Wall Street Journal, and via other means of information consumption, I am saddened by the apparent death of journalistic integrity in this country. Perhaps it was always a mirage, but media seem more interested in pushing a particular viewpoint rather than presenting facts. Fox News and CNN, for example, are on opposite sides of the Ferguson story and pretty much every other story. No matter what situation arises, these "news" agencies are interested in promoting the story they think their audience wants to hear, or one which will get more eyeballs to tune in, than they are in reporting facts.

Rolling Stone has now issued a retraction on their UVA rape story, and has publicly apologized for publishing the alleged victim's story and making no attempt to contact the accused or vet the story in any meaningful way, but only after holes began appearing.

The Huffington Post published a headline stating "15 eyewitnesses saw Brown's hands up", but never mentioned that several of those witnesses later testified they didn't actually see his hands up, nor what "hands up" meant (i.e. never above his shoulders, etc.). So while a "fact", it is obviously spin. Now, the Huffington Post doesn't purport to be a legitimate journalistic site, so I have less complaint there than I do with Fox, CNN, MSNBC.

Fox News used to proclaim itself "fair and balanced," when it was obviously nothing of the sort. Cable news channels on the whole are in the business of generating ratings to sell advertising, yet the bulk of Americans who actually follow any news get their news from Cable news sources.

I fear that most Americans do not understand the cable news business model, and believe every single thing they see on Fox or CNN or others. I fear that many young Americans watch the Daily Show for news content rather than entertainment. My wife and I, both conservative, watch the Daily Show because Jon Stewart is funny, regardless of his political leanings. We are able to laugh at the stupidity of the actions taken by Chris Christie in his pig pen veto, for example, as well as the WH Press Secretary effectively saying, "Hey man, I just work here" as pertains to the selections of the Ambassadors to Argentina and Hungary this week.

That said, I fear that many Americans are watching these productions and allowing others to formulate their opinions for them, rather than seeking to actually be informed. It is saddening, if not frightening, and it goes both ways.

IMO, the best source for actual news and the closest one can get to "just the facts" remains the newspaper outside of the Op/Ed section. As that medium dies, does any shred of journalistic integrity go with it?

 

[kescwi]

Cable news to me is like McDonalds v Burger King, Lowe's v Home Depot, CVS v Walgreen's... opposite each other on way too many American street corners and giving the appearance of competition where none exists.

News today is similar, while superficially Fox and CNN may appear to be competing in reality they are not and the lack of any real competition leads to tacit collusion where they can focus on a larger shared purpose, maintaining the status quo for their corporate owners.

I agree it is sad, and it is easy to fall victim to seeing similarities that don't exist when reading history but one thing I notice when reading about Europe on the eve of WWI is how controlled the news was and today we are not much different IMHO with the the majority of news controlled by a handful of people.

 

[CWS]

There should be 2 things and a clear difference between the two:
1. News shows
2. Opinion shows
Unfortunately these are being blended together. In a 24hour news channel, you need both. If it is just news, then you get the CNN Malaysian plane search worthless TV. On the opinion side, it is best when both sides are represented.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Purdue85]

sorry, no.

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:
As I've watched some cable news programming recently, read in my daily Wall Street Journal, and via other means of information consumption, I am saddened by the apparent death of journalistic integrity in this country. Perhaps it was always a mirage, but media seem more interested in pushing a particular viewpoint rather than presenting facts. Fox News and CNN, for example, are on opposite sides of the Ferguson story and pretty much every other story. No matter what situation arises, these "news" agencies are interested in promoting the story they think their audience wants to hear, or one which will get more eyeballs to tune in, than they are in reporting facts.

Rolling Stone has now issued a retraction on their UVA rape story, and has publicly apologized for publishing the alleged victim's story and making no attempt to contact the accused or vet the story in any meaningful way, but only after holes began appearing.

The Huffington Post published a headline stating "15 eyewitnesses saw Brown's hands up", but never mentioned that several of those witnesses later testified they didn't actually see his hands up, nor what "hands up" meant (i.e. never above his shoulders, etc.). So while a "fact", it is obviously spin. Now, the Huffington Post doesn't purport to be a legitimate journalistic site, so I have less complaint there than I do with Fox, CNN, MSNBC.

Fox News used to proclaim itself "fair and balanced," when it was obviously nothing of the sort. Cable news channels on the whole are in the business of generating ratings to sell advertising, yet the bulk of Americans who actually follow any news get their news from Cable news sources.

I fear that most Americans do not understand the cable news business model, and believe every single thing they see on Fox or CNN or others. I fear that many young Americans watch the Daily Show for news content rather than entertainment. My wife and I, both conservative, watch the Daily Show because Jon Stewart is funny, regardless of his political leanings. We are able to laugh at the stupidity of the actions taken by Chris Christie in his pig pen veto, for example, as well as the WH Press Secretary effectively saying, "Hey man, I just work here" as pertains to the selections of the Ambassadors to Argentina and Hungary this week.

That said, I fear that many Americans are watching these productions and allowing others to formulate their opinions for them, rather than seeking to actually be informed. It is saddening, if not frightening, and it goes both ways.

IMO, the best source for actual news and the closest one can get to "just the facts" remains the newspaper outside of the Op/Ed section. As that medium dies, does any shred of journalistic integrity go with it?

Newspapers have always had their own axes to grind.

The same for network news. One only needs to see how "journalists" manipulated the Vietnam coverage as evidence.

In generations past, newspapers clearly stated what they were. You had the XXXX Democrat Gazette, or some other political persuasion.

Because of the internet, today we enjoy a more open source of news, and people can clearly see the biases of their news sources. That's a good thing. We all have them, including the so-call "journalists".

Interestingly, Fox News was considered one of the most fair sources of news for recent election cycles, but continues to be pilloried by leftists looking to mock anyone who doesn't get their daily marching orders from traditional liberal sources, or those who hold anything but a radical leftist view.

 

[ecouch]

Re: sorry, no.

I remember those articles about Fox during the last election cycle. It was the Heritage Foundation's and AEI'S greatest analysis to date.

 

[Purdue85]

Re: sorry, no.

Originally posted by ecouch:
I remember those articles about Fox during the last election cycle. It was the Heritage Foundation's and AEI'S greatest analysis to date.

Okay. Leftists like Ed Rendell, Hillary Clinton and others have praised Fox News for their balanced coverage.

The current radicals at CNN and PMSNBC won't get that. Nobody is really watching those broadcasts.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: sorry, no.

Originally posted by Purdue85:

Newspapers have always had their own axes to grind.

The same for network news. One only needs to see how "journalists" manipulated the Vietnam coverage as evidence.

In generations past, newspapers clearly stated what they were. You had the XXXX Democrat Gazette, or some other political persuasion.

Because of the internet, today we enjoy a more open source of news, and people can clearly see the biases of their news sources. That's a good thing. We all have them, including the so-call "journalists".

Interestingly, Fox News was considered one of the most fair sources of news for recent election cycles, but continues to be pilloried by leftists looking to mock anyone who doesn't get their daily marching orders from traditional liberal sources, or those who hold anything but a radical leftist view.

Note that I said newspapers were "the best source." Not a perfect source. They are also trying to sell subscriptions and in some ways are in the entertainment business as well. The difference is, they have the time to vet their stories a little bit more, and are not prisoner to the real-time ratings chase that causes Fox, CNN, and MSNBC, etc., to make statements designed to attract and appeal to their viewers.

Radical is in the eye of the beholder. Fox is far from "balanced" unless you mean they are the "balance" to MSNBC and CNN, etc. Charles Krauthammer, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly are all far from "balanced" and they frequent the Fox News airwaves. "Balanced" to me means reporting from the middle. Not one of the cable news entertainment channels is balanced.

I purposely don't watch Fox News because I actually want my opinions and thoughts to be challenged. I usually go with CNN because MSNBC is too over-the-top for me. The most balanced network I've watched is Al Jazeera, but their coverage of national news is usually lacking. They do better on world news, IMO.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: sorry, no.

Originally posted by ecouch:
I remember those articles about Fox during the last election cycle. It was the Heritage Foundation's and AEI'S greatest analysis to date.

Exactly. Conservative bloggers consider Fox News the best, most balanced source. Liberals all think CNN is balanced. Neither is true. (Even most liberals acknowledge that MSNBC doesn't even pretend to be balanced...)

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Originally posted by CWS:

Unfortunately these are being blended together. In a 24hour news channel, you need both. If it is just news, then you get the CNN Malaysian plane search worthless TV. On the opinion side, it is best when both sides are represented.

The problem is, even when cable news entertainment includes the opposing view, as Fox and CNN do, the opposing view is frequently marginalized. Moderators cut them off, or give the favored narrative the last word.

If I was a Democrat, I would never grant Fox News an interview because there's no attempt to listen or even consider or discuss the opposing viewpoint. The moderator just cuts them off with some strawman 90% of the time.

 

[tantalum]

I seem to remember that Obama refused to debate Hillary Clinton on Fox news which is very understandable for a democrat. What is simply stupid is for Republican Party to allow so many presidential debates to be moderated by a liberal democrats clearly hostile to all of them. Much better to have the debates moderated by a respected conservative even if the debate is only broadcast on Fox or C-Span. Most of the median CNNABCNBCNPR do not deserve the respect they get.

 

[lbodel]

I mean, it's been this way for a number of years now.

The thing is, there's such a clamoring to have instant news and this constant "breaking news" that nobody spends the time investigating actual news. Investigative journalism has really gone downhill.

As much as people like to hate on them, the New York Times still does some old school journalism and is typically pretty reliable in its reporting. Their operation has just been trimmed down, so it's not as across the board.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I think the Times on the left and the WSJ on the right are both good.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Boiler20]

Agree and also on the Chicago Tribune versus the Sun-Times, at least that's the way it used to be when I lived there 20 years ago. Things haven't changed in the last 20 years in terms of news media, have they? (jk!).

 

[Boiler20]

Re: sorry, no.

I agree with your last statement, but also find that they indeed also make some fairly and even outright blatant right-side portrayals what seems about 10-15% of the time, while the CNN, MSNBC, etc.,...are blatantly left about 60-70% of the time. Maybe its a case of 'one is more sensitive to what they disagree with', I don't know, but it sure seems the 'leaning' or 'sidedness' is about that, imo.

I am curious about what everyone thinks about the new 'OANN' network (One America News Network). It's mainly conservative, according to Wiki, and its widest distribution is on Verizon FiOS, and ATT Uverse, and is based in San Diego (which, btw, means 'a whale's vagina').

 

[Purdue97]

A lot of people thought he was a great reporter, but in my opinion, much of this goes on Walter Cronkite. Why? That was when news reporting changed drastically. Instead of reporting on teh Vietnam War, he cam out and made a blanket statement that the war was not winnable. His opinion of course.

The reality was, and this has been admitted by more than one North Vietnamese General, that all the USA had to do was push north and it was over. Why? These generals simply say there was really nobody left to fight.

Cronkite is revered, people copy him, and now you have the cesspool we have today.

I do think people have to realize there is a difference between news shows and talk opinion shows. Unfortunately, that is lost on many.

Out of curiosity what shows on FNC do you watch? There news reporting, and some of their regular contributors are really pretty solid.

 

[Purdue97]

Well

I asked you above what FNC you watched, because in your OP you critique them a bit, which is fine. But then here you turn around and say you do not watch it. That is a real common statement about FNC. People critique them, they are to far right, but hey, I do not watch it.

The thing that I do like about Hannity and O'Reilly, when I do watch it, is that they have people coming in to talk on both sides of the issue, and they typically get a chance to speak their piece. Now those two typically disagree with the liberal, but one does hear both sides the discussion. When I do watch FNC which is not real often, I typically stick to The Five, Brett Baer, and forgot the guys name on in the afternoon.

For the record I usually hit up realclearpolitics.com, online. As for tv news it is CNBC, FBNC, and Bloomberg. Those station bring in a plethora of analysts to hear different views-usually on the economy and/or geopolitics.

 

[Purdue97]

Interesting you say what you say about being a democrat and fox news. John Kerry has said his biggest mistake in his Presidential election was not going on FNC when invited. Why? It was not going to cost him any votes and it hurt his chance to reach out to viewers that were not going to hear him otherwise.

 

[kescwi]

What is the conservative/republican obsession with rewriting the history of the Vietnam war?

I would be interested in the generals who said they would have capitulated. Yes the US had the capability to push into North Vietnam and could have occupied the north, let's forget about how Russia and China may have reacted and stay in the hypothetical, but at what cost and would it really have been a victory? The NVA was led by former Viet Mihn leaders, they fought an insurgency for 15 years before becoming a nation only to then start fighting the the US, do you think they really would have just stopped?

As for Cronkite and the media sabotaging the Vietnam War, not one of the major news sources investigated the "Nixon Treason" during or after the '68 elections, but it was know and hung around as rumor until the LBJ tapes were released. 20,000 American lives lost so the man could win an election and keep the war going only to achieve pretty much the same cease fire agreement 4 years later.

It isn't liberals but human nature that brought about the negative press on Vietnam.

 

[Beeazlebub]

I personally prefer the PBSNewshour & BBCworldnews to any broadcast that is strictly beholden to ratings. I find the civility of PBSNewshour far superior to most "discussions" on a 24hour news network where the strength of an argument is proportional to the volume at which it is expressed. Shields & Brooks do an excellent commentary on Fridays where they oftentimes disagree, but can do so with civility and even friendship. The world, and this board, could learn something from their style.

Unfortunately, viewers of 24hour TVnews prefer a certain combination of bombastic claims with simplicity, and CNN, FOX, & MSNBC are responding to their viewers. As the classic film "Network" portrayed nearly 40 years ago, neither news nor reporting should be about ratings.

On a related note: The best show on CNN is Anthony Bourdain's "Parts Unknown". His recent episode in Iran was fantastic.

 

[Purdue97]

To be honest, did not really look at it in a right or left, conservative or liberal view point.

Gr8 started a thread about journalistic integrity that had a lot of good view points about how it is muddied. And I just threw my 2 cents in when I thought it started.

I understand who the NVA was led by and their history. I also understand their Generals statements, on documentaries and some personal experiences while in the military, that said it was all but over when the USA left.

I did not look at it as liberals that brought the negative press on Vietnam, just crummy reporting. Ity has negatively impacted the US Military engagements to this day as the enemy knows all they have to do is disappear into the shadows, put up a token fight for awhile, the media in the US will sour on the fight, and leave.

 

[Purdue85]

Re: sorry, no.

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:

Originally posted by Purdue85:

Newspapers have always had their own axes to grind.

The same for network news. One only needs to see how "journalists" manipulated the Vietnam coverage as evidence.

In generations past, newspapers clearly stated what they were. You had the XXXX Democrat Gazette, or some other political persuasion.

Because of the internet, today we enjoy a more open source of news, and people can clearly see the biases of their news sources. That's a good thing. We all have them, including the so-call "journalists".

Interestingly, Fox News was considered one of the most fair sources of news for recent election cycles, but continues to be pilloried by leftists looking to mock anyone who doesn't get their daily marching orders from traditional liberal sources, or those who hold anything but a radical leftist view.

Note that I said newspapers were "the best source." Not a perfect source. They are also trying to sell subscriptions and in some ways are in the entertainment business as well. The difference is, they have the time to vet their stories a little bit more, and are not prisoner to the real-time ratings chase that causes Fox, CNN, and MSNBC, etc., to make statements designed to attract and appeal to their viewers.

Radical is in the eye of the beholder. Fox is far from "balanced" unless you mean they are the "balance" to MSNBC and CNN, etc. Charles Krauthammer, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly are all far from "balanced" and they frequent the Fox News airwaves. "Balanced" to me means reporting from the middle. Not one of the cable news entertainment channels is balanced.

I purposely don't watch Fox News because I actually want my opinions and thoughts to be challenged. I usually go with CNN because MSNBC is too over-the-top for me. The most balanced network I've watched is Al Jazeera, but their coverage of national news is usually lacking. They do better on world news, IMO.

No. They're not "the best source", nor the perfect source.

All are selling something, newspapers included. They are all designed to appeal to, and attract readers/viewers.

If you prefer CNN because you think it "challenges", and you think "Al Jazeera" is the most balanced ... frankly, you're lost, and it's all everyone needs to know about you.

Al Jazeera is pure propaganda. Period. CNN is nowhere near a balanced network that "challenges" people.

Good grief, man.

You've ripped on the Tea Party, and I've challenged you on it. And you've never offered a response. I don't get all the Tea Party bashing, but now it makes sense.

You're not a conservative, as you've advertised yourself.

No, conservatism isn't defined by those who champion the leftists at CNN, nor the anti-American radicals on Al Jazeera.

Why am I not surprised....

 

[Purdue85]

Re: sorry, no.

Originally posted by Boiler20:
I agree with your last statement, but also find that they indeed also make some fairly and even outright blatant right-side portrayals what seems about 10-15% of the time, while the CNN, MSNBC, etc.,...are blatantly left about 60-70% of the time. Maybe its a case of 'one is more sensitive to what they disagree with', I don't know, but it sure seems the 'leaning' or 'sidedness' is about that, imo.

I am curious about what everyone thinks about the new 'OANN' network (One America News Network). It's mainly conservative, according to Wiki, and its widest distribution is on Verizon FiOS, and ATT Uverse, and is based in San Diego (which, btw, means 'a whale's vagina').

From what little I've seen, I like One America news, but they don't seem as polished as I think they could be.

I haven't watched them enough to know what their political leanings are (they all have them), but time will tell.

 

[kescwi]

I was making an observation and should have added that in the past it was democrats who liked to mold history with their mantra that Kennedy was going to pull out of Vietnam.

Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying and you weren't trying to revise history. After Tet of '68 most say that the Viet Cong were no longer viable in the South and after the '72 offensive the NVA were worn out and along with the mining of the harbors and bombings it was hard for the NVA maintain itself in the South. I have heard many comments about that and missed opportunities in the South at that time but I have never heard that the North was vulnerable and a total victory possible.

But back to the OP.

I disagree on the reporting about Vietnam and today, I don't think lessons were learned, buying the Gulf of Tonkin and then mushroom clouds more recently but I also think the military has done a far better job communicating, and waging these excursions recently than they did in the 60's/70's. I'm not sure that is a bad thing.

As for Vietnam reporting negatively impacting military engagements, I don't know, it sure hasn't slowed them down. We are approaching the 40th anniversary of the fall of Saigon and there was about a 15 year lull after that but how many years, how many places, how many times have we been militarily "engaged" since 1975?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Originally posted by Purdue85:

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:

Originally posted by Purdue85:

Newspapers have always had their own axes to grind.

The same for network news. One only needs to see how "journalists" manipulated the Vietnam coverage as evidence.

In generations past, newspapers clearly stated what they were. You had the XXXX Democrat Gazette, or some other political persuasion.

Because of the internet, today we enjoy a more open source of news, and people can clearly see the biases of their news sources. That's a good thing. We all have them, including the so-call "journalists".

Interestingly, Fox News was considered one of the most fair sources of news for recent election cycles, but continues to be pilloried by leftists looking to mock anyone who doesn't get their daily marching orders from traditional liberal sources, or those who hold anything but a radical leftist view.

Note that I said newspapers were "the best source." Not a perfect source. They are also trying to sell subscriptions and in some ways are in the entertainment business as well. The difference is, they have the time to vet their stories a little bit more, and are not prisoner to the real-time ratings chase that causes Fox, CNN, and MSNBC, etc., to make statements designed to attract and appeal to their viewers.

Radical is in the eye of the beholder. Fox is far from "balanced" unless you mean they are the "balance" to MSNBC and CNN, etc. Charles Krauthammer, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly are all far from "balanced" and they frequent the Fox News airwaves. "Balanced" to me means reporting from the middle. Not one of the cable news entertainment channels is balanced.

I purposely don't watch Fox News because I actually want my opinions and thoughts to be challenged. I usually go with CNN because MSNBC is too over-the-top for me. The most balanced network I've watched is Al Jazeera, but their coverage of national news is usually lacking. They do better on world news, IMO.

No. They're not "the best source", nor the perfect source.

All are selling something, newspapers included. They are all designed to appeal to, and attract readers/viewers.

If you prefer CNN because you think it "challenges", and you think "Al Jazeera" is the most balanced ... frankly, you're lost, and it's all everyone needs to know about you.

Al Jazeera is pure propaganda. Period. CNN is nowhere near a balanced network that "challenges" people.

Good grief, man.

You've ripped on the Tea Party, and I've challenged you on it. And you've never offered a response. I don't get all the Tea Party bashing, but now it makes sense.

You're not a conservative, as you've advertised yourself.

No, conservatism isn't defined by those who champion the leftists at CNN, nor the anti-American radicals on Al Jazeera.

Why am I not surprised....

Aww, so since I don't fit your definition of conservative, apparently because I am at least a little bit open minded, does that mean I can't come in to the treehouse? Sad face.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Purdue97]

No I agree that media has not slowed down the number of military operations. My point was, especially post Vietnam, and in talking with Al Qaeda/Taliban/insurgents overseas, they pretty much know they do not have to fight the USA anymore. Mainly because media will start out strong in support the operation, but then grow uninterested or their support will diminish, therefore changing public perception. That is my 2 cents. I can see how you say that over time human nature will cause support to erode as well.

JMO, many times the media will start spewing some bs about a war being winnable or not, and many of them(not all) really have no clue about the situation. As I look back on what I posted and read your comments, I will say that when it comes to "winning a war" a lot of the issues have to do with the government/politicians never really stating what the objectives are-so it is not all on the media. If citizens/media are not sure of a goal militarily then their responsibility should be not to back it to a degree. I do think the politicians like ambiguity due to the fact they do not have to commit to anything.

 

[BoilersRock]

It would be interesting, and nice, to know exactly how Conservative is defined by those who most fervently and unquestioningly adhere to it. What would be the pillars of Conservatism, and is it absolutely necessary to subscribe to every last one of them to be deemed Conservative? Some, of course are quite apparent - others, not so much.

I've offered the names of various statesmen before to see if they are, or are not viewed as such, to get an idea but could never get a definitive answer.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Originally posted by BoilersRock:
It would be interesting, and nice, to know exactly how Conservative is defined by those who most fervently and unquestioningly adhere to it. What would be the pillars of Conservatism, and is it absolutely necessary to subscribe to every last one of them to be deemed Conservative? Some, of course are quite apparent - others, not so much.

I've offered the names of various statesmen before to see if they are, or are not viewed as such, to get an idea but could never get a definitive answer.

I think this is a good question. You've tried on various occasions to get an answer out of '85, but it hasn't happened. I think he has labeled at least 3 on this board as "leftists" (Noodle, Ecouch, Gr8), which makes you wonder what it takes to be a full-fledged conservative in the eyes of the far-right.

 

[qazplm]

I think CNN

is balanced in the sense that I don't believe they exhibit an inherent bias like Fox or MSNBC. I also think they are extremely lazy, cover only the surface, and think slapping one person from each side solves any and all issues. I think they do the least in-depth work of the three, and I think they have the weakest group of people on-air and behind the scenes.

The only real thing they have going for them is the ability to be everywhere, but that's really not an advantage anymore as other networks now have that ability just as much.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Originally posted by BoilersRock:
It would be interesting, and nice, to know exactly how Conservative is defined by those who most fervently and unquestioningly adhere to it. What would be the pillars of Conservatism, and is it absolutely necessary to subscribe to every last one of them to be deemed Conservative? Some, of course are quite apparent - others, not so much.

I've offered the names of various statesmen before to see if they are, or are not viewed as such, to get an idea but could never get a definitive answer.

From what I've read, I'd say that like a lot of Tea Party folks, 85 thinks that if you're willing to compromise anything to the left, you're not a conservative. Many of the party hardliners view it as their role to stand up to everything the Democratic Party wants, even if it means complete obstructionism, because that's what they perceive Democrats do them. The Democrats had control of House, Senate, and Executive. Of course they did things without the support of the minority party in Congress. They could, they had the mandate from the 2008 election, so they did it. If Republicans had it the same way, they'd do the exact same thing.

One thing I've seen consistently on this and other political discussion forums is that people aligned both left and right think that their party does things righteously and across party lines, when the fact is neither one does, at least not in the last six years. On the left, they haven't had to. On the right, they feel like they shouldn't have to.

I'm very clearly a fiscal conservative and a social-indifferent (i.e. I don't think it should be a government - certainly not a Federal government - issue whether or not homosexuals can marry, for example. I would never elect someone or not based on their social views unless it was a tie breaker. Fortunately, most candidates (at least publicly) align themselves with whatever the party mandates.

In my voting history, I've never voted for a single Democrat. But I'm a leftist. When you're a fringe-of-the-party guy, even the centrist looks extreme.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: sorry, no.


What specifically did you ask me about the Tea Party? I don't recall that, and I certainly didn't avoid answering you because I'm afraid I'm wrong or some other inference you might be making. In fact, if I blatantly ignored the question, it was likely because I saw no value in continuing the discussion with the second-most unreasonable and ignorant person on this message board.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: I think CNN

Originally posted by qazplm:
is balanced in the sense that I don't believe they exhibit an inherent bias like Fox or MSNBC. I also think they are extremely lazy, cover only the surface, and think slapping one person from each side solves any and all issues. I think they do the least in-depth work of the three, and I think they have the weakest group of people on-air and behind the scenes.

The only real thing they have going for them is the ability to be everywhere, but that's really not an advantage anymore as other networks now have that ability just as much.

I agree with everything you said except that I think CNN does have an inherent bias. Just like 85 and some others think FoxNews is fair, I'd assume you think CNN is fair (note: I don't think you're anywhere near as idiotic as 85, etc., not the implication I'm making.) I think Fox is closer to the fringe than CNN, but not quite as far right as MSNBC is left.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I have watched O'Reilly, Hannity, a lot of election coverage, and a lot of their news coverage in the past - Iraq war, OBL assassination, etc. I typically will flip between CNN and Fox when something big is going on (Crimean invasion, Mike Brown, etc.), but find myself preferring CNN over Fox.

I don't want to agree with everything because then you become narrow-minded. Even some of their panel discussions completely marginalize any liberal viewpoint expressed. CNN does that to the conservative view points, but they stop short of cutting them off, disregarding them with strawmen, etc., tactics which MSNBC and Fox use quite a bit on panel discussions.

Recently, the short answer to "what do you watch on FNC?" is "Nothing."

 

[qazplm]

I dont know what fair means

and I dont know what it means in context of CNN. You can be biased but fair, and you can be unbiased and not fair.
I just don't think there are a whole lot of folks who are particularly left or right of center at CNN. There's a lot of folks who I'm not even sure think that way over there. Which is not even necessarily a good thing.

I think Fox is every bit as far right as MSNBC is left.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Originally posted by Purdue97:
Interesting you say what you say about being a democrat and fox news. John Kerry has said his biggest mistake in his Presidential election was not going on FNC when invited. Why? It was not going to cost him any votes and it hurt his chance to reach out to viewers that were not going to hear him otherwise.

That's a good point by Kerry, and I'm sure that's why other Democrats go on Fox.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: I dont know what fair means

Originally posted by qazplm:
and I dont know what it means in context of CNN. You can be biased but fair, and you can be unbiased and not fair.
I just don't think there are a whole lot of folks who are particularly left or right of center at CNN. There's a lot of folks who I'm not even sure think that way over there. Which is not even necessarily a good thing.

I think Fox is every bit as far right as MSNBC is left.

It's like this:

- I think I'm center-right.
- I would guess you view me as right, but not fringe right.
- I think you're left, bordering the fringe, but not quite on it - I think I've called you an Obama shill about six times...
- I'm guessing you view yourself as center left.

Thus, of course I think Fox isn't fringe right, but you would. And I view CNN as further left than you do. Same reason 85 just called me a leftist - he's so far right, everything looks left. It's all relative!

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

Re: Well

Originally posted by Purdue97:
I asked you above what FNC you watched, because in your OP you critique them a bit, which is fine. But then here you turn around and say you do not watch it. That is a real common statement about FNC. People critique them, they are to far right, but hey, I do not watch it.

The thing that I do like about Hannity and O'Reilly, when I do watch it, is that they have people coming in to talk on both sides of the issue, and they typically get a chance to speak their piece. Now those two typically disagree with the liberal, but one does hear both sides the discussion. When I do watch FNC which is not real often, I typically stick to The Five, Brett Baer, and forgot the guys name on in the afternoon.

For the record I usually hit up realclearpolitics.com, online. As for tv news it is CNBC, FBNC, and Bloomberg. Those station bring in a plethora of analysts to hear different views-usually on the economy and/or geopolitics.

I used to watch a fair amount of Fox News. There was a time, I think, when the slogan "Fair and Balanced" wasn't as delusional as it is now. When it was Hannity and Colmes, for example - I thought that was a fairly decent show as regards both sides. As the polarization of politics has gone further and further, so Fox News has gone further and further to cater to its audience. It makes sense for them to do so - they are in the business to make money, after all.

What ultimately stopped me from watching was Bill O'Reilly. I can't recall the situation or the incident, but there was an episode where he had invited a high school student on as a guest. During the "interview," O'Reilly kept interrupting and eventually became downright insulting to the kid. It was ludicrous. Bill O'Reilly is nothing more than Rush Limbaugh televised.

 

[Purdue97]

JMO-For election coverage I really started to get into realclearpolitics.com it seems to be decent for jsut regualr news as well.

-They show all of the major polls, have the dates they were conducted, and even average them together.

-There are a lot of articles on their from the most liberal websites and the most conservative, and everything in between.

The other thing I like is that one is reading an article, and not listening to a panel, so one does not have to worry about one voice being shouted down or drowned out.

 

[Purdue97]

Re: Well

I did not see that with o Reilly. I will say I agree that I liked Hannity and Colmes, not a fan of Hannity by himself.

 

[qazplm]

some of your guesses right, some wrong

I think you are right. I don't see much center in you, but I agree you aren't on the fringe.
I think I'm left. I have some center in me, but I wouldn't say enough to call me "center left."
I don't think "being in the center" means much one way or the other so I have no problem being just "left."

I don't see anything on Fox that tells me "center-right." Yes, they have some "liberals" on there but most of them aren't really liberals, at best they are center-left. Of course, MSNBC has some "conservatives" but at this point it's probably fair to say most folks on the right consider Scarborough to be center-right at best, so they probably have the same criticism.

The difference between the two channels is that Fox was specifically set up to help the right. Roger Ailes was deeply involved in republican campaigns including Reagan and with Rush. It's whole raison d'etre is to push conservative (although more Republican) positions. MSNBC didn't originate that way, but I think they saw the model of Fox in that respect, saw the ratings numbers, and have embraced the contrapositive to become the "Fox of the left."

And with that they've occasionally risen to number 2 in cable news or at least challenged CNN as a viable competitor better than when they didn't embrace that role, so it makes business sense for them. However, I don't think it's embedded in their being quite the same as Fox. Regardless, I see nothing in MSNBC that makes it more liberal than Fox is conservative.

 

[qazplm]

Is it? In politics there is such a thing as bad press. I doubt he'd have reached many Fox viewers, and I suspect the set-up wouldn't have led to favorable press for him.

His problem that election, in part, was not aggressively fighting back against the Swift Boat stuff right away. He let it fester and grow until it was too late to do anything about it. His choice of VP candidate was pretty poor as well (both politically and as it turned out for his moral character).