Fox News, insert secondary comment here

[MRT144]

As i was watching the toppling of saddams statue the commentators said something about the BBC covering an earthquake in India. And they made light of the fact saying that this was sooooo much more important than the earthquake.

They seemed to imply that because the BBC wasnt taking it up the poop chute from the administration to go to war they are somehow antiwar, and because they were antiwar they didnt choose to cover this.

is that even kosher to take on another network like that?


i wish FOX news wouldnt editorialize the news and demean other networks like BBC who are by and large more accepted as being fair and balanced than a fanboy for whatever right of centre politics is put forward in america.

[MikeH]

That's stupid. The BBC will cover both. what that says to me is that Fox News isn't giving proper coverage of international news.

[Kontiki]

Actually, what it really says is that Fox News knows its audience. Draw your own conclusions from that.

[MikeH]

Fair point.

[MRT144]

that begs the question then: "how do they get away with claiming they are fair and balanced when they specificly cater to a demographic that is right of centre"

[MikeH]

I've never seen anyone claim they were fair and balanced.

[JohnT]

When was this done? If the "commentators" are the people who do their morning show, well, that is typical for that type of program... just watch Katie and Matt on NBC for an example.

[MRT144]

these were reporters commentating while the statue was being pulled down. basicly the people back at the studio talking to the field reporters.

i dont watch much morning television so i wouldnt know about katie and matt but if what you say is true, why doesnt someone just point out that Fox is out of their gord?

[rah]

That begs the question, what are the goals of the (insert any) network.

In the old days, (in the US) there were only three networks. This required them to do the WHOLE package when it came to coverage (or normal programming) to get the largest audience. Respect meant everything.

The introduction of cable in normal programming offered the opportunity to do more niche type programming. You didn't have to appeal to everyone, just your target.

Now with the wide variety of NEWS networks, we're starting to see the same mentality. At first, Fox couldn't compete with CNN and the others, so they started to target a slightly different audience. (insert joke here) But now, their viewership is increasing (as most news networks will during a war) and they are beating CNN. Now they must decide what to do about it. Do they continue doing what they did to get here or do they take the opportunity to clean up their act and get some respect. Are they satisfied with their tabloid type reputation? A lot of respected newspapers started with a tabloid reputation. We'll have to wait and see if their newly found popularity influences them.

RAH
NAW

[Lincoln]

You have to take all of this with a grain of salt. Almost all the news now days is biased. The facts speak for themselves though if we ever learn them...

[MRT144]

but to go out of your way to desparige another network because they covered an natural disaster and this spectacle symbolic event rather than solely this symbolic event?

thats just...really...daft, in my opinion

[Lincoln]

I really don't like Fox because of their arrogance, especially Bill O'Riley.

[Sava]

Speaking of FOX, I was switching around the news stations last week, came to FOX, only to see they were doing a piece bashing Peter Jennings and ABC.

FOXnews is a lot like me. They have strong opinions, and usually resort to personal attacks because they are stupid. The difference is, I don't have a huge viewership.

[Kropotkin]

Well, we're quite many here at the OT watching you making a fool of yourself.

[Kropotkin]

On a more serious note: how can anyone take a channel that spends time talking **** about other channels seriously?

As for that Bill O'Riley person. I've had the missfortune to hear him explain how the world works on a number of occasions and it's an enigma that such a inept person gets that much room. (It's what I call the Per Ahlmark-phenonomen).