Open Mouth. Insert Foot, Fox News

[LowerCaseRepublican]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2119864/

 

Norvell is London bureau chief for Fox News, and on May 20 he let the mask slip in, of all places, the Wall Street Journal. So far, the damage has been contained, because Norvell's comments—in an op-ed he wrote decrying left-wing bias at the BBC—appeared only in the Journal's European edition. But Chatterbox's agents are everywhere.

 

Here is what Norvell fessed up to in the May 20 Wall Street Journal Europe:

 

Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind.

 

Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it.

 

----

 

Kinda shoots down the "Fair and Balanced" slogan they throw at you 2972349823749324 times in a segment.

[KipWellsFan]

What a joke.

[Rex Kickass]

Stupid Liberal Media

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2119864/

 

Norvell is London bureau chief for Fox News, and on May 20 he let the mask slip in, of all places, the Wall Street Journal. So far, the damage has been contained, because Norvell's comments—in an op-ed he wrote decrying left-wing bias at the BBC—appeared only in the Journal's European edition. But Chatterbox's agents are everywhere.

 

Here is what Norvell fessed up to in the May 20 Wall Street Journal Europe:

 

    Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind.

 

    Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it.

 

----

 

Kinda shoots down the "Fair and Balanced" slogan they throw at you 2972349823749324 times in a segment. 

 

 

Any idiot who actually watches Fox News can see that on their OPINION related shows there is a bias toward the right wing and RIGHT thinking guests. How does that relate to how the news is reported though?

 

There you go again lumping in shows that are based on OPINION with actual news reporting.

[Rex Kickass]

Except watch the anchors. They lump Opinion into the actual news reporting. Let's be honest here, Fox News is fair and biased.

 

And that's just fine.

[mreye]

I take the "Fair and Balanced" tag to mean that the news as a whole is now fair and balanced, not neccessarily Fox News itself. I know that's not what they say, but if you look at it that way - it's totally different.

[Rex Kickass]

It's cool that they're fair and biased. Just wish they'd admit it more often.

[mmmmmbeeer]

It really says something that people believe that Fox has a hidden agenda. How much more obvious could their bias be? So some dude from Fox admitted the slant and now the conspiracy comes crashing down. Whatever.

 

I can't even stand FNC much anymore, blowhards like OReilly and Hannity really have a tendency to get on my nerves, and I'm fairly conservative. But the idea that they've been trying to mask their bias is a ridiculous idea. They can't get much more obvious. I didn't need a bureau chief to tell me so.

[Rex Kickass]

It really says something that people believe that Fox has a hidden agenda.  How much more obvious could their bias be?  So some dude from Fox admitted the slant and now the conspiracy comes crashing down.  Whatever. 

 

I can't even stand FNC much anymore, blowhards like OReilly and Hannity really have a tendency to get on my nerves, and I'm fairly conservative.  But the idea that they've been trying to mask their bias is a ridiculous idea.  They can't get much more obvious.  I didn't need a bureau chief to tell me so.

 

Nine times out of ten, the Fox News Channel will deny that there is a bias to their coverage. Although CNN is really becoming just as bad, as much as most people don't want to admit it... the RNC's preferred media outlets are NBC, Fox News and CNN in that order.

[AngelasDaddy0427]

QUOTE(winodj @ Jun 3, 2005 -> 01:59 PM)

Nine times out of ten, the Fox News Channel will deny that there is a bias to their coverage. Although CNN is really becoming just as bad, as much as most people don't want to admit it... the RNC's preferred media outlets are NBC, Fox News and CNN in that order.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think that CNN is "becoming just as bad" so much is they just have to compete. I mean if the RNC makes fox their like only media outlet that puts them at a huge disadvantage. They are no where near as bad as Fox though. It's still just about ratings.

[mreye]

Nine times out of ten, the Fox News Channel will deny that there is a bias to their coverage. Although CNN is really becoming just as bad, as much as most people don't want to admit it... the RNC's preferred media outlets are NBC, Fox News and CNN in that order.

CNN? Really? I haven't watched it in a long time. I didn't realize.

[KipWellsFan]

Nine times out of ten, the Fox News Channel will deny that there is a bias to their coverage. Although CNN is really becoming just as bad, as much as most people don't want to admit it... the RNC's preferred media outlets are NBC, Fox News and CNN in that order.

 

You couldn't possibly be insinuating that there isn't a liberal media bias!?!

[Texsox]

Any idiot who actually watches Fox News can see that on their OPINION related shows there is a bias toward the right wing and RIGHT thinking guests.  How does that relate to how the news is reported though? 

 

There you go again lumping in shows that are based on OPINION with actual news reporting.

 

Part of it is the talking opinion makers tell you to not trust the liberal news reporting and just listen to them for the truth on what is really happening. Then they tell the GOPerheads what to think. Too many people get their news from Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, Ingram, Savage, Colson, Chuck Muth, Kaye Daly, Tom Adkins, Beverly LaHaye, Dr. James Dobson, Medved, Reagan, do I need to go on?

 

Just give me a ditto Nuke

[JUGGERNAUT]

You still don't know what fair & balanced means. It means for every opinion they express on the news shows they offer time to someone who might have a counter opinion. Nothing more.

 

Some like it others don't. It came from CNN's own Crossfire. Now it seems every show on the big 3 (FOX, MSNBC, & CNN) follows the same paradigm.

 

I personally don't like it. It makes the news tedious. I prefer one show presenting an opinion and the facts to support it & another show offering a counter opinion and the facts to support that. CNN actually did that to at one time but the ratings weren't strong enough.

 

Based on the ratings it's clear America likes the confrontation news segments. America apparently likes the segments on FOX the best. You would have to be crying over a friend named "Spaulding" not to know that Murdoch is staunch conservative so it should come as no surprise that when reporting the news is would slant towards his viewpoint. He's been quoted as saying he created FOX News with one purpose in mind: beat CNN & his life-long rival Turner.

 

But let me just say that taking a conservative viewpoint when reporting the news is a far cry from fabricating a lie as a truth like CBS did. Ratings wise it still has not recovered from Memo-gate. American's don't like bold faced liars who refuse to see or admit the truth when it's so obvious to everyone else.

[FlaSoxxJim]

American's don't like bold faced liars who refuse to see or admit the truth when it's so obvious to everyone else.

Then why did we put one back in the Oval Office for four more years?

[Balta1701]

You still don't know what fair & balanced means.  It means for every opinion they express on the news shows they offer time to someone who might have a counter opinion.  Nothing more.

 

This is simply not true. Not in the least. Fox News makes it a point to give far more screen time to Republicans, and cherry picks Democrats for many of their topics who already agree with the Republicans on the issue they're discussing.

 

For example, the Terry Schaivo case...1 person in 2 nights opposing congressional involvement...12 supporting it.

 

The Minutemen project along the southern border...the only opposition voice on the screen over a 6 day period on 1 show was 1 clip of a border patrol agent.

 

Fox Aired far more of the Republican Convention than the Democratic Convention last summer.

 

On Special Report with Brit Hume...they have a segment where Mr. Hume does a 1-on-1 interview. And the makeup of that interview? "[a]mong ideological guests, conservatives accounted for 72 percent, while centrists made up 15 percent and progressives 14 percent." And not infrequently, the Democrats who do come in either come in like Bill Clinton, talking about something like the tsunami and not politics, or they come in as another Congressman did talking in favor of Bush's social security plan.

 

Fox News is in no way fair and balanced. The numbers do not lie.

[JUGGERNAUT]

This is simply not true.  Not in the least.  Fox News makes it a point to give far more screen time to Republicans, and cherry picks Democrats for many of their topics who already agree with the Republicans on the issue they're discussing.

 

Fox News is in no way fair and balanced.  The numbers do not lie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You are confusing opportunity with action. They often extend invitations to those who are expected to give rebuttal opinions & those invitations are declined. You hear O'Reilly say this often. Extending the invitation is in keeping with being fair & as far as being balanced they do what they can with the people who are willing to speak on the network. If some of those invited are gutless what's a network to do?

 

They had the highest ratings for both coverage of the DNC & RNC amongst cable networks. That pretty much squashes the belief they short-timed the DNC.

[KipWellsFan]

American's don't like bold faced liars who refuse to see or admit the truth when it's so obvious to everyone else.

 

[Balta1701]

You are confusing opportunity with action.  They often extend invitations to those who are expected to give rebuttal opinions & those invitations are declined.  You hear O'Reilly say this often. Extending the invitation is in keeping with being fair & as far as being balanced they do what they can with the people who are willing to speak on the network.  If some of those invited are gutless what's a network to do? 

 

They had the highest ratings for both coverage of the DNC & RNC amongst cable networks.  That pretty much squashes the belief they short-timed the DNC.

 

So your second claim is simply nonsense. They showed more of the Republican convention than the Democratic convention, but had high ratings for both - higher for the RNC convention of course. How exactly does having high ratings for both justify giving 1 party significantly more time than the other one?

 

Or, let's take the October 18th speeches by both candidates last year as another example. Both John Kerry and George Bush gave campaign speeches that day. Neither were overlapping. Other networks showed almost as much of each speech. But not Fox.

 

MSNBC CNN FOX

Bush speech 43:27 36:42 47:14

Kerry speech 39:35 35:25 9:40

 

Or how about we look at the Content of stories run about each candidate during the campaign.

A study released September 9 found that evaluations of Bush on the network news broadcasts and major newsweeklies -- as well as FOX News Channel -- were more negative than positive. But the study also found what it called "The FOX News Difference." The study reported: "FOX News Channel was about as negative towards Bush as the broadcast networks ["more than 60 percent" negative for Bush], but Kerry's evaluations were negative by a five-to-one [negative-to-positive] margin [around 84 percent negative for Kerry]."

 

And finally...to fire back at the O'Reilly part...your quote is...

 

If some of those invited are gutless what's a network to do?

 

Well, it seems that the answer to your question is "give them a prime time news show." You see...Mr. O'Reilly has long had a bunch of fairly vocal critics over at Media Matters for America, run by David Brock. Mr. O'Reilly has even compared MMFA to the KKK and Castro for keeping an eye on what words are comign out of Mr. O'Reilly's mouth. Mr. Brock has repeatedly offered to appear on O'Reilly's show to address the content of that show. Mr. O'Reilly has claimed that he has had "trouble" finding people to appear on his show to disagree with him, but has never shown any willingness to face his well-prepared critics at MMFA.

 

Fox News is the single biggest audience in terms of cable news shows. No self-respecting politician would turn down the opportunity to appear on their shows, even if it were a challenge. There are plenty of guests waiting to appear on those shows who never are asked. Their panels are remarkably unbalanced. Their coverage is hugely slanted to the pro-Republican perspective. Their leadership sends out memos telling their anchors what angles to focus on in particular stories.

 

The numbers and the facts simply do not lie.

[Benchwarmerjim]

I make it simple on myself. I just dont watch FoxNews anymore. I watch Keith Olbermanns show on MSNBC. I find that show fairly entertaining. And I watch Aaron Browns show on CNN. He delievers his content calmly. Which I like. And CNN Headline News in the morning to catch up whats up in the world

 

But I get most of my news by scoping out the Yahoo! News section. Most of the stories there are from AP or Rueters. So they are fairly nonbiased. And you see stories that you dont see on TV

[Texsox]

I usually tune to Fox for breaking news. I usually like their live coverage better. If the Dems have blundered, I watch Fox to get the worse possible slant.

[Balta1701]

I usually tune to Fox for breaking news. I usually like their live coverage better. If the Dems have blundered, I watch Fox to get the worse possible slant.

 

Hey...at least you're not denying it.

 

I don't mind the existence of Fox News. I don't mind the existence of a Republican news channel. But I can't stand 2 things;

 

1. They lie and say they're "fair and balanced".

2. As a Democrat...I don't have anywhere I can turn for the same thing. No one out there would even consider giving 75%+ of their interview time to the Democrats.

[Texsox]

I vote the Democratic candidate most of the time. If pressed to pick one, I would call myself a Dem. Although I did allow a Bush - Chaney yard sign, but personally voted for Kerry.

[KipWellsFan]

You are confusing opportunity with action.  They often extend invitations to those who are expected to give rebuttal opinions & those invitations are declined.  You hear O'Reilly say this often. Extending the invitation is in keeping with being fair & as far as being balanced they do what they can with the people who are willing to speak on the network.  If some of those invited are gutless what's a network to do? 

 

Wow Juggs no numbers to back that up?

 

I have a hard time believing such large disparities are due simply to this.

 

You hear O'Reilly say this often.

 

He also made up a French newspaper out of thin air once too, so...

Edited June 7, 2005 by KipWellsFan

[Balta1701]

He also made up a French newspaper out of thin air once too, so...

 

I think that was the funniest MMFA Find ever. I fell on the floor laughing at that one.

 

"Media Matters for America found no evidence of a publication named "The Paris Business Review."