(no subject)

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Comments

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

Relatively speaking, I'd say that you're all right wing anyway, but that's not the point. For good or bad, America has divided itself into too broad camps; the right-wing Republican-voting group and the (relative) left-wing Democrat-voting group. The question is whether particular stations are more biased to one or the other.

Given the nature of American news, I'd be very surprised if the news coverage doesn't go where the money is, hence you have some that pander to the American 'right-wing' and some that pander to the 'left-wing'.

Fox News has an international reputation for being an absurd pseudo-news station pandering to the American right-wing. If you can't call Fox news out on it's bias but feel comfortable doing so with most other outlets, then I think that's the hostile media effect in play.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

Actually FNC is most trusted network in US. When I say biased, I mean reporting news dishonestly. They do that too, but in a lesser degree, and not always pandering to the right, but sometimes to the left. And unfortunately it is about the money. Just couple days ago, Murdock advocated for legalization of illegals and really pissed off the right. Of course, he is just the owner of the network. Did you ever watch the interview they conduct with people in high power? I would say pretty soft sometimes. The other network interviews are pretty ridiculous.

[aviv-b.livejournal.com]

Citation please. Show me the proof that FNC is the most trusted network in the US. If you state something as a fact, then you need to show your sources and supporting data. Otherwise, your just blowing smoke out your ass.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

I actually don't care if you believe me or not
I usually do not google. Google is for people who has no systematic knowledge.
You can google yourself, if you want to proof me wrong.
However, one exception:
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-fox-is-the-most-trusted-tv-news-source-in-america-2014-6

[aviv-b.livejournal.com]

I can see why you don't like Google. Google is a tool that gives you results, some credible, some not so much. It also requires that you actually read what comes up to understand if it supports your point or not.

The article you cited - let's look at that beyond the title. What is shows is that a plurality of REPUBLICANS/CONSERVATIVES find FN the most trustworthy source for news. Of all people responding to the survey, a whopping 25% find FN the most trustworthy. That doesn't exactly say much, does it. 25%, where I come from is not a majority, plurality, landslide or anything near that.

And for a person who claims that FN isn't to the right of center, I'm sorry to tell you that the study you cite contains the following gem, "The survey also found that there is no media source that has a political role on the center or left that is comparable to Fox's on the right." I guess that shoots your 'FN is centrist" belief all to hell.

Facts don't have a liberal or conservative bias. But FN has a strong right wing bias. The study you site supports that.
You may assert anything you like here. But unless you provide evidence, your opinion will be given the weight it deserves, that is to say little to none by most members. And if you really don't care, why do you bother to even post.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

As aviv_b, that source does not support the claims you have been making.

You also seem to have confused 'most trusted' with 'least biased'. A news company can often create trust by matching it's bias to that of it's intended audience.

"When I say biased, I mean reporting news dishonestly."

This article is from the same source you cited in your previous comment: STUDY: Watching Only Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All (http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5)

I wasn't being disingenuous earlier; my general impression is a lot of American 'news' is sensationalist and unreliable, but Fox News has emerged as the prime example of that. I have friends who have purposefully turned in to Fox News whilst on holiday in America out of morbid fascination.

If Fox News was truly centrist, that would only be to the wider shame of the American public.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

Maybe we mean different things when we say biased.
Most of the people on Fox are opinion journalists, and they very clearly state their side; their opinion will be biased -no secret there. They also have couple of "reporters", like Rosen and Cameron, who are very objective and after 15 years I still can't figure out their positions. On the other hand, Gregory, e.g, pretends that he is a neutral, it's very obvious he isn't.
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 call it biased when somebody breaks the hell for something, but when the other side does the same-no big deal here.
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.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"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.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

Opinion pieces have value, but they must be a supplement to news not a replacement for it.
Who says they are?

Any popularly watched 'news' outlet that leaves it's watchers less informed than people who don't watch news at all.
Just because you read it somewhere doesn't mean it's true. Have you ever see the questions in the polls? Those could be really biased. I remember, recently I yelled at one of this pollster and hang up in a rage. The question was formulated the way that whatever answer I picked would be against my beliefs.

If you don't agree with my definition of biased, then I might seem biased to you, because your center is left to me. But then you have to agree that your center might be biased and you would never know. In your definition, if I understand correctly, there is no absolute zero that we can start the count, it is only an opinion.
I watch whatever I watch. I am mature enough to make right judgment, without being subject to influence. Also, I was exposed to a variety of ideologies - seen from different prospective. By the way, couple years ago I was watching all the other networks equally. But now they are so ridiculous that I can't stand them more then 5 minutes.
And again, I have no problem with any ideology, what is not acceptable to me is the dishonesty.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"Who says they are?"

You did: "Most of the people on Fox are opinion journalists"

"Just because you read it somewhere doesn't mean it's true"

I choose that specific source because it was a source that you deemed reliable enough to use as a source in a previous comment.

"But then you have to agree that your center might be biased and you would never know."

Everyone is biased. The issue isn't 'which of us is biased' but 'which of us acknowledges and compensates for bias'.

There's a variation on the golden rule that I like: 'Treat everyone 10% better than they treat you to compensate for subjective error'. The idea is that by acknowledging your own bias in how you think, you can become fair and unbiased in how you behave.

People who don't acknowledge their own bias can't be trusted to properly compensate for it.

"I watch whatever I watch. I am mature enough to make right judgment, without being subject to influence."

This is the same kind of naivety that leads people to say "I'm not influenced by advertising" despite all the evidence that pretty much everyone is.

If you don't think that you're influenced by media then you're exactly the sort of person most likely to be influenced by it. If you don’t acknowledge that it’s happening, you can’t question yourself about it after the fact.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

We going in circles now. Again, your 10% compensation can still be more bias then my 0%. That is why I think my idea of comparing to the reality is better way to deal with this issue.
Don't you think that some people are more influenced by advertisement then others?