It is a legitimate news source, it's just the only major news sources that tends to have a more right wing spin, as such it's hated by the left wing. Given that the left wing controls most of the rest of the media, and doesn't really like the opposing viewpoint, what mistakes Fox makes are more frequently broadcast, and more people are looking to jump on them. Given the huge left wing prescence on this site, Fox news hatred is pretty much the standard.Kieran Villoth said:I know there have to be some people on this site who watch Fox...why do you? Is it for comedic purposes, or do you consider it a legitimate news source?
Therumancer said:Given that the left wing controls most of the rest of the media,
Is the opposite ofTheIronRuler said:and they have a really dunb habit of not checking their facts and pulling in specialists that have nothing to do with the case or have little knowledge of it
a legitimate news Outlet.
They selll opinions. They package them, give them a fancy name like 'doctor' or 'expert', fill in the opinion themselves and just let it run.DracoSuave said:Is the opposite ofTheIronRuler said:and they have a really dunb habit of not checking their facts and pulling in specialists that have nothing to do with the case or have little knowledge of it
a legitimate news Outlet.
Fox News is terrible. American news, in general, is pretty terrible, but FOX is REALLY terrible.
Yes. Political Commentators have a responsibility to check their facts to a reasonable degree, the same as any newspaper editorial
As someone mentioned, Fox News is not legally allowed to call itself 'news' in Canada because it doesn't pass muster for fairness.
Are all news biased? To some degree, however that doesn't excuse a news program for being bad.
Do a search for 'Fox News Investigative Reporting.' Now do a search for 'CNN Investigative Reporting.' 'NBC Investigative Reporting.' 'ABC Investigative Reporting.'
When a news network does not HAVE an investigative reporting division, they are bad. There's no news to be found there. Nothing of value. Move along, because they're only going to report what real journalists are looking into.
The existance of bias does not excuse a lack of journalistic integrity, a lack of journalistic investigation, a lack of deep reporting that you DO get on things like the BBC, canadian news outlet, and pretty much anywhere that actually takes the world seriously.
Because it's still biased, and biased in a way that doesn't suit my political alignment.Kieran Villoth said:Alright, I can see where you're coming from with the legitimacy, but why not go to BBC, or some news source that isn't as biased?farson135 said:Fox is as legitimate a news source as MSNBC, CNN, or Pravda. I read and watch as many news shows and newspapers (online) as I can because I hope if I get enough versions of a story I will find something approaching the truth.
However one wonders if the OP actually has a purpose in asking this question (i.e. a quest for knowledge) or if this is just more bullshit. I expect it is the latter but let us see how this goes before I pass judgment.
He may be honest, but he also claims we don't know what causes the tides. Apparently, he's never heard of the moon.Gilhelmi said:I like Bill O'Rilly. He might be the most honest commentator out there. Note, I did not say completely honest JUST the most honest (Like the most honest thief, or the most honest car sales man.). Now, I am including all media outlets CNN, MSNBC, and FOX. I try to watch CNN and Fox (MSNBC just pisses me off since Rachele Murdock and the FT. Hood attacks, I will not go into details here).
You get your facts from the Daily Show? It didn't exactly score well in the list of stations shown in the beginning. As a matter of fact, he joked about Fox scoring only slightly better than them.NameIsRobertPaulson said:CNN is biasfarson135 said:Fox is as legitimate a news source as MSNBC, CNN, or Pravda. I read and watch as many news shows and newspapers (online) as I can because I hope if I get enough versions of a story I will find something approaching the truth.
However one wonders if the OP actually has a purpose in asking this question (i.e. a quest for knowledge) or if this is just more bullshit. I expect it is the latter but let us see how this goes before I pass judgment.
MSNBC is bias
BBC is bias
FOX outright lies.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-21-2011/fox-news-false-statements
That's why I don't watch them.
Yea, I watched a little bit on Rachel Maddow just now about the gun control stuff. She is incredibly ignorant of firearms. Everything she said was either due to her not knowing anything about guns or is a complete lie. She called a 7.62mm (assuming it is 7.62x39 AK-47 round) an anti-aircraft and artillery round... That's like calling a firecracker a weapon of mass destruction.farson135 said:If you think that Fox is the only network that out and out lies when it serves its agenda then you do not watch enough of the news. Either that or you cannot look beyond your own bias to see the lies others are telling you.NameIsRobertPaulson said:CNN is bias
MSNBC is bias
BBC is bias
FOX outright lies.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-21-2011/fox-news-false-statements
That's why I don't watch them.
Look up Rachel Maddow and Glock 7 or if you are too lazy, Maddow tries (and succeeds in some cases) to convince her viewers that the Glock 7 exists. Problem is that the Glock 7 only exists in the movie Die Hard. The reason she tries to convince us of this is to further her anti-gun agenda. And no, I do not believe she is stupid enough to not know the gun is fake after talking about it (at least) twice. Plus she stated at the end of the segment that you should not look up this stuff on the internet because you will only see lies from the gun lobby.
Typing...looks up Glock 7 on the internet...first hit is Urban Dictionary...the site says that the glock 7 is fake...apparently the Urban Dictionary is part of the gun lobbies conspiracy.