Poll: Fox news...
- Thread starter enzilewulf
- Start date
Oh man, those guys are hi-larious! I wish the regular news networks (like Steven Colbert and John Stewart) could inject some humor in their reporting like the ones previously mentioned do. But I guess they stay serious because they're reporting real, unbiased news.TornadoADV said:
I have access to PBS, which basically has the closest thing to a non bias show called the news hour. It's boring as you can imagine with a name like that, but it simply is facts, facts, and two proven experts gunning at each other.
Since i haven't seen one slick of mention of it at all, is it even available in most places?
Since i haven't seen one slick of mention of it at all, is it even available in most places?
Just as biased as every other news source, people seem to forget to apply logic. Draw your own conclusions.
If you want an unbiased political source use C-Span, all they do is drop a camera and a mic in the room, no reporters, no purposeful candidate masturbation, just exactly what goes on.
If you want an unbiased political source use C-Span, all they do is drop a camera and a mic in the room, no reporters, no purposeful candidate masturbation, just exactly what goes on.
PBS is awesome, I love the complete lack of interruption of programming.
They managed to defeat the human condition of Bias?! Amazing!
Called him a facist, last I remembered, Facist always != Nazi.
I think that they have a long line-up of shows that infuriate me. Not because of political principle but because they have hosts that simply irriate me to no end. I also think that they do a poor job of distinguishing between the portions that are "News" and the portions that are "Commentary". Finally, I think that the news segments often use underhanded tactics in order to maintain a consistant message while attemping to appear non-biased. For example, an event occurs and it is reported. A commentary show comes on later and gives it a spin. The next news segments cites the commentary segment using some variation of the phrase "Some people say..." I also think that their assertion that they are non biased is the most offensive and insulting thing they could ever say. I don't mind that they are biased, but the fact that they will pretend they aren't annoys me to no end. Mostly because untold millions believe the assertion.
Actually newspapers are bullshit as well. They pull what's called "The Reversed Pyramid" that's where they'll put all the catchy and interesting stuff first and as you get to the more important information it gets progressively boring. Also newspapers can be skewed by a liberal, conservative, or flip flopping reporters or editors. In short journalism is dead sensationalism reigns supreme.Fappy said:
OT: what's with all the hate against Fox news? They're less Biased than NBC, but no one seems to throw a shit about that. Me personally I'm a CBS, and C-Span man.
P.S. Why is it that tons of people (NBC I'm looking at you) like to paint the right as violent people; when the only time I ever see a protest turn into a riot is with leftist groups?
Seriously? You view that as news? If anyone ever comes up to me and ask "What do you think is wrong with the United States?" I will simply point at this comment, and say "There you go!"mikespoff said:
i keep waiting to read about fox news putting comedy central out of business. it's like a 24 Colbert Report, except they take it even further then Stephen.
I've pretty much given up on domestic broadcast news.
I get most of my news from NPR or BBC. MSNBC if I absolutely need to find out about some breaking news of interest.
I get most of my news from NPR or BBC. MSNBC if I absolutely need to find out about some breaking news of interest.
Everything is politically slanted, Fox simply goes against the grain of other networks who, while they compete, generally tend to hold a consensus on how things will be spun. Speaking soley by the US, with a Democrat/Republican divide that is pretty much 50-50 with a few percentage points going either way at any moment this means your going to find lovers and haters for both sides. The left wing having always been more vocal, and more ready to jump on when the other side makes a mistake. The right wing having more of a "silent majority" type attitude on a lot of things despite what many might think, which is in part why the numbers are so easy to misunderstand (and understand the right wing does not literally have a majority at the moment, the last non-slanted figures showing roughly a 7% lead in the other direction, though how that has actually changed at this point is anyone's guess).
Truthfully it would be nice if there was more balanced reporting on both sides, but as things stand now it seems that the two big "poles" seem to be CNN and Fox News on the extremes. CNN isn't likely to change as long as Ted Turner and Jane Fonda are still kicking, and Fox isn't likely to change as long as almost everyone else is liberal since pulling a bit to the right is what sets them apart from the pack.
In the end I honestly don't think there is such a thing as a truely impartial source of unfiltered information out there. Except for perhaps ironically a few sites like "Encyclopedia Dramatica" which (and seriously, if your laughing, think about this) exists to mock everyone, and when you get past the "lulz" they generally do quite a bit of research on whatever it is they are busting on, and when it's a "serious issue" which is only covered recently they draw from both sides. They rarely cover anything serious though. This is a rather extreme opinion, but there is a reason why on certain subjects I actually link to them with a disclaimer. Ironically in their attempt to basically "offend everybody", but do it with a certain level of quality, they have actually become a more reliable source of information (complete with referances to their sources usually) than actual news reporters. That is both really sad, and should also tell you what opinion I have of the news networks including Fox despite me pulling right a lot more than left on most things.
Truthfully it would be nice if there was more balanced reporting on both sides, but as things stand now it seems that the two big "poles" seem to be CNN and Fox News on the extremes. CNN isn't likely to change as long as Ted Turner and Jane Fonda are still kicking, and Fox isn't likely to change as long as almost everyone else is liberal since pulling a bit to the right is what sets them apart from the pack.
In the end I honestly don't think there is such a thing as a truely impartial source of unfiltered information out there. Except for perhaps ironically a few sites like "Encyclopedia Dramatica" which (and seriously, if your laughing, think about this) exists to mock everyone, and when you get past the "lulz" they generally do quite a bit of research on whatever it is they are busting on, and when it's a "serious issue" which is only covered recently they draw from both sides. They rarely cover anything serious though. This is a rather extreme opinion, but there is a reason why on certain subjects I actually link to them with a disclaimer. Ironically in their attempt to basically "offend everybody", but do it with a certain level of quality, they have actually become a more reliable source of information (complete with referances to their sources usually) than actual news reporters. That is both really sad, and should also tell you what opinion I have of the news networks including Fox despite me pulling right a lot more than left on most things.
Semantics, the point is Humans as a species are completely incapable of being completely unbiased. Sure, they could just report the facts and avoid their personal feelings on the matter, but without their commentary, people will lose interest and change the channel.stinkychops said: