Did someone say FOX News was biased?

[JohnT]

Yeah, it's just deferential to the EEOC in promoting unqualified and blatantly dishonest employees.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Sava
The big difference is that there is an editorial section of the paper where opinionated pieces are seperated from the news. On Fox, there is no such distinction.

Anytime a news network continuously tells you its "Fair and Balanced", you know its gonna be blatant propaganda because if they were fair and balanced, they would not shove it in your face.

They know that if you simply repeat yourself over and over, people will eventually come to you.....

[Sava]

Sava, et al., How does this square with your previous statement that CNN savaged Clinton?

huh? How is this at all relevant to the discussion. I simply pointed the Monicagate affair out to dispell Defiant's assertion that CNN was the Clinton News Network.

[Ned]

CNN's bashing of Clinton is highly relevant if one is to accept Krugman's thesis that the reason Fox is biased in favor of the war is because of government regulation of broadcast networks.

This is a real slimy piece by Krugman. I agree with Cavuto.

[Sava]

CNN's bashing of Clinton is highly relevant if one is to accept Krugman's thesis that the reason Fox is biased in favor of the war is because of government regulation of broadcast networks.

That's not entirely what the piece said. He just cited those examples.

This is a real slimy piece by Krugman. I agree with Cavuto.

oh yeah, informing the public about the abuses of media conglomerates... HOW SLIMY

[Boris Godunov]

After reading Krugman's piece, I have even more contempt for Cavuto. He's a sleazeball trying to weasel out of his blatant bias when presenting the news. Name me one other reputable news source where the anchors are also given time as commentators. It is such a conflict of interest that I'm surprised people are so blase about it.

Were Dan Rather or Tom Brokaw given segments in which to espouse their own political views, do you think that would be a reasonable way of presenting information to the public? Why should we be listening to an anchor's opinion anyway? Their job is to report the news, not tell me what to think about it.

[Sava]

Boris... the continuing voice of intelligence and reason (and I'm not just trying to get you in the sack)

Kronkite (spelling) was the best news anchor because he reported the news and didn't insert his own opinions.

[Dinner]

Krugman is a swine and (surprise!) so is Cavuto. The thing is Cavuto doesn't have the pretenious air about him and that's why I like him better.

[Sava]

Cavuto reminds me of this little fat kid who tried to bully everyone in fourth grade... some people were scared of his demeanor, but I promptly kicked his ass

[Ned]

Actually, you guys may not know this, but at least CBS news, and perhaps all the others as well, ran daily opinion pieces at the end. On CBS evening news, IIRC, it was Eric Severeid that most often gave us the opinion piece. But Cronkite is famous for coming out against the Vietnam war.

The opinion pieces were carefully packaged and labeled as opinion. The news was given straight and seemingly without political bias (but we all know how that can be done while still biasing the news). The question is, why did the major networks stop giving opinions at one point in time?

I suspect, but do not know, is that the so-called fairness doctrine forced them to stop after someone filed and won a lawsuit forcing "equal time."

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sava
Boris... the continuing voice of intelligence and reason (and I'm not just trying to get you in the sack)

So what, in addition to getting me in the sack, are you trying to do?

[Dinner]

As long as they come out and tell you "This segment is an editorial" then I don't have a problem with it, but, when they're giving me the news I want it to be like Dragnet "Just the facts, ma'am".

[Sava]

I don't even mind Cronkite's opinions about Vietnam. When such an immoral, unjust, and terribly wrong action occurs by a Democratic nation, it would be wrong to try and not express your opinions about it.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


So what, in addition to getting me in the sack, are you trying to do?

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
After reading Krugman's piece, I have even more contempt for Cavuto. He's a sleazeball trying to weasel out of his blatant bias when presenting the news. Name me one other reputable news source where the anchors are also given time as commentators. It is such a conflict of interest that I'm surprised people are so blase about it.

Were Dan Rather or Tom Brokaw given segments in which to espouse their own political views, do you think that would be a reasonable way of presenting information to the public? Why should we be listening to an anchor's opinion anyway? Their job is to report the news, not tell me what to think about it.

Yes Dan Rather is the epitome of fair and unbiased news reporting, just like Newsmax. As for Tom Brokaw, he is much better in at least attempting to be fair to the actual news withour the subtle bias that Rather interjects in almost all of his "reporting."