"Most of the people on Fox are opinion journalists"
This is already pretty shameful for any self-identified 'news' source.
Opinion pieces have value, but they must be a supplement to news not a replacement for it. They should also include a variety of common opinions from both the general public and academia and not be slanted towards any ideological viewpoint or part of the political spectrum favoured by the news broadcaster.
"If Fox News was truly centrist, that would only be to the wider shame of the American public. Why would you say that? I am conservative and don't see anything shameful in that, as well as in being liberal, though I don't like their ideology and think it's damaging to society."
Any popularly watched 'news' outlet that leaves it's watchers less informed than people who don't watch news at all is a shameful to the nation in which people watch it.
In a similar way, that 'news' outlets like the Daily Mail newspaper are popular in the UK is shameful to the UK. The Daily Mail is sensationalist and is often identified as making false or misleading claims, but a significant section of the British public read it anyway.
"I call it biased, when the presidential debate moderator inserts herself into the debate taking a side. I can explain if you don't know what I'm referring to. "
I think the problem is that your biased in what you call biased.
More fundamentally, I think the problem is that you don't recognise that bias in yourself and thus aren't compensating for it in your judgements.
I mentioned the Daily Mail as a disgrace of a newspaper. Two other popular newspaper in the UK is The Telegraph and The Guardian. I have seen persons with left-wing politics attack the Telegraph for it's right-wing bias, and I've seen right-wing persons attack the Guardian for it's left-wing bias. There doesn't seem much acknolwedgement of bias in the Guardian from persons with left-wing views nor much acknowledgement of bias in the Telegraph from people with right-wing views. In short, people's accusation of bias are themselves biased.
I'm a civil liberal who believes in a regulated economy, so 'left-wing', yet I read articles from both the Telegraph and the Guardian whilst recognising their political leanings. I don't read the Daily Mail at all because it's the sort of paper that leaves you less informed than when you started reading it.
If I was American, I would not watch Fox News for the same reason that I don't read the Daily Mail. That you don't seem to even recognise that it's biased suggests that you're not making a fair and objective judgement.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2014-06-26 12:46 pm (UTC)This is already pretty shameful for any self-identified 'news' source.
Opinion pieces have value, but they must be a supplement to news not a replacement for it. They should also include a variety of common opinions from both the general public and academia and not be slanted towards any ideological viewpoint or part of the political spectrum favoured by the news broadcaster.
"If Fox News was truly centrist, that would only be to the wider shame of the American public.
Why would you say that? I am conservative and don't see anything shameful in that, as well as in being liberal, though I don't like their ideology and think it's damaging to society."
Any popularly watched 'news' outlet that leaves it's watchers less informed than people who don't watch news at all is a shameful to the nation in which people watch it.
In a similar way, that 'news' outlets like the Daily Mail newspaper are popular in the UK is shameful to the UK. The Daily Mail is sensationalist and is often identified as making false or misleading claims, but a significant section of the British public read it anyway.
"I call it biased, when the presidential debate moderator inserts herself into the debate taking a side. I can explain if you don't know what I'm referring to. "
I think the problem is that your biased in what you call biased.
More fundamentally, I think the problem is that you don't recognise that bias in yourself and thus aren't compensating for it in your judgements.
I mentioned the Daily Mail as a disgrace of a newspaper. Two other popular newspaper in the UK is The Telegraph and The Guardian. I have seen persons with left-wing politics attack the Telegraph for it's right-wing bias, and I've seen right-wing persons attack the Guardian for it's left-wing bias. There doesn't seem much acknolwedgement of bias in the Guardian from persons with left-wing views nor much acknowledgement of bias in the Telegraph from people with right-wing views. In short, people's accusation of bias are themselves biased.
I'm a civil liberal who believes in a regulated economy, so 'left-wing', yet I read articles from both the Telegraph and the Guardian whilst recognising their political leanings. I don't read the Daily Mail at all because it's the sort of paper that leaves you less informed than when you started reading it.
If I was American, I would not watch Fox News for the same reason that I don't read the Daily Mail. That you don't seem to even recognise that it's biased suggests that you're not making a fair and objective judgement.