Can Fox News be trusted?

[Question Everything]

Asked what most viewers and observers of Fox News would be surprised to learn about the controversial cable channel, a former insider from the world of Rupert Murdoch was quick with a response: “I don’t think people would believe it’s as concocted as it is; that stuff is just made up.�

http://www.readersupportednews.org/off- ... t-made-upq

[His Name Is John]

John

First you say that the BBC is not "objectively pro-west", then you complain that it is.

Please read my last post again:

That is exactly what I mean. Unfortunately the BBC is bias towards the west. That is what I was trying to say. The BBC is too pro-west.

I made a mistake in my earlier post.

I live half my life in the UK and half abroad. I watch the BBC world news as my source of reliable information, as the local news channels are rubbish. I also watch CNN and ABC (Australian). All are fair and reasonable.

However the BBC employ lots of local reporters in the huge variety of countries they cover. Their coverage is very definitely not "pro-west" at all. It is also not controlled by the local government which is why they get muzzled from time to time. I think you can trust the BBC without any worry at all.

I have lived in England all my life.

The idea that 'you can trust the BBC without any worry at all' is a horrible thought. A good amount of skepticism should be applied to all the news we hear about. We should expect bias, and lies, as that is generally what we get.

[dianaiad]

Asked what most viewers and observers of Fox News would be surprised to learn about the controversial cable channel, a former insider from the world of Rupert Murdoch was quick with a response: “I don’t think people would believe it’s as concocted as it is; that stuff is just made up.�

http://www.readersupportednews.org/off- ... t-made-upq

According to studies, specifically by one UCLA study Fox NEWS is closer to center than the majority of either broadcast or print media. It's opinion programs lean pretty far to the right--though not as far as the extreme left wing media suggests. However, the News?

A whole lot closer to center than anybody but ABC. Everybody else leans so far to the left that they are in danger of falling off the teeter-totter. Certainly Fox News is less schizophrenic than the Wall Street Journal, which leans right in opinion...and far left in the news sections.

Whenever I find someone going on and on about how right wing Fox News is, I KNOW that the complainer is left wing. What they mean is that Fox News doesn't have a leftist bias, and so is uncomfortable for liberals.

...............for some odd reason, I've noticed that those who complain the most about Fox News like to get THEIR information from, oh,....CBS, the New York Times, the LA Times and the Huffington Post; all of which are universally acknowledged as leaning left. Far left.

But bias LEFT seems to be just ducky....and the irony is pretty telling.

(edited to change "ABC' to CBS...ABC is actually centrist. It's CBS that has fallen off the ship portside. )

[cnorman18]

Asked what most viewers and observers of Fox News would be surprised to learn about the controversial cable channel, a former insider from the world of Rupert Murdoch was quick with a response: “I don’t think people would believe it’s as concocted as it is; that stuff is just made up.�

http://www.readersupportednews.org/off- ... t-made-upq

According to studies, specifically by one UCLA study Fox NEWS is closer to center than the majority of either broadcast or print media. It's opinion programs lean pretty far to the right--though not as far as the extreme left wing media suggests. However, the News?

A whole lot closer to center than anybody but ABC. Everybody else leans so far to the left that they are in danger of falling off the teeter-totter. Certainly Fox News is less schizophrenic than the Wall Street Journal, which leans right in opinion...and far left in the news sections.

Whenever I find someone going on and on about how right wing Fox News is, I KNOW that the complainer is left wing. What they mean is that Fox News doesn't have a leftist bias, and so is uncomfortable for liberals.

...............for some odd reason, I've noticed that those who complain the most about Fox News like to get THEIR information from, oh,....CBS, the New York Times, the LA Times and the Huffington Post; all of which are universally acknowledged as leaning left. Far left.

But bias LEFT seems to be just ducky....and the irony is pretty telling.

(edited to change "ABC' to CBS...ABC is actually centrist. It's CBS that has fallen off the ship portside. )

I'm perfectly aware that the major medial outlets lean left; and if Fox wants to lean right, that's fine with me. But running an outright hit piece on Obama that could have been produced by the Tea Party, which even conservatives called irresponsible, and calling it a "news story" on a "news program," is WAY over the line. When you see CNN or even NBC do something that blatant, let me know.

"Two wrongs don't make a right," and all that. The question is, can Fox News be trusted? The answer is obviously "No." If you want to make a thread asking the same question about MSNBC, you'll find me voting the same way, though not QUITE as emphatically.

[dianaiad]

Asked what most viewers and observers of Fox News would be surprised to learn about the controversial cable channel, a former insider from the world of Rupert Murdoch was quick with a response: “I don’t think people would believe it’s as concocted as it is; that stuff is just made up.�

http://www.readersupportednews.org/off- ... t-made-upq

According to studies, specifically by one UCLA study Fox NEWS is closer to center than the majority of either broadcast or print media. It's opinion programs lean pretty far to the right--though not as far as the extreme left wing media suggests. However, the News?

A whole lot closer to center than anybody but ABC. Everybody else leans so far to the left that they are in danger of falling off the teeter-totter. Certainly Fox News is less schizophrenic than the Wall Street Journal, which leans right in opinion...and far left in the news sections.

Whenever I find someone going on and on about how right wing Fox News is, I KNOW that the complainer is left wing. What they mean is that Fox News doesn't have a leftist bias, and so is uncomfortable for liberals.

...............for some odd reason, I've noticed that those who complain the most about Fox News like to get THEIR information from, oh,....CBS, the New York Times, the LA Times and the Huffington Post; all of which are universally acknowledged as leaning left. Far left.

But bias LEFT seems to be just ducky....and the irony is pretty telling.

(edited to change "ABC' to CBS...ABC is actually centrist. It's CBS that has fallen off the ship portside. )

I'm perfectly aware that the major medial outlets lean left; and if Fox wants to lean right, that's fine with me. But running an outright hit piece on Obama that could have been produced by the Tea Party, which even conservatives called irresponsible, and calling it a "news story" on a "news program," is WAY over the line. When you see CNN or even NBC do something that blatant, let me know.

You mean....like the forged papers CBS pulled on Bush...or the carefully edited 911 call from Zimmerman from NBC?....

PuLEEEZE.

"Two wrongs don't make a right," and all that. The question is, can Fox News be trusted?

Evidently more than CBS or NBC, certainly.

The answer is obviously "No." If you want to make a thread asking the same question about MSNBC, you'll find me voting the same way, though not QUITE as emphatically.

You are not happy about one story...that YOU call a "hit piece' (because you don't like it since you lean left yourself and really don't like stories that make you uncomfortable, politically) that "could have been produced by the Tea Party" (boy, if that doesn't scream 'political bias' I don't know what does....I'll bet you really LIKE Media Matters and think that, along with Dan Rather, that the 'story is true even if the papers aren't' about the Killian papers...and that there was NOTHING wrong in pulling that stunt two months before the election).

Or this one, which tickles me:

This morning CNN had headline news saying that Obamacare had been struck down, ruled unconstitutional. This was related TO Fox News, to Megyn Kelly and others, who ALMOST went along with CNN, but then said 'Stop...this isn't quite right; be patient with us while we sort this out."

Turns out that SCOTUS told Obama that he couldn't expand the COMMERCE clause to declare the mandate, but he COULD call it a tax (something that Obama has said over, and over, and over again that it was NOT...) as his lawyers argued in the argument portion of the case. FOX got that straightened out in spite of CNN.

Does anybody yell at CNN?

Nope. All the people I argue with about politics are making fun of Fox News, though.

Oh. Wait.

Didn't you just ask me to find something blatant about CNN that would indicate that it wasn't trustworthy?

(grin)

[cnorman18]

Asked what most viewers and observers of Fox News would be surprised to learn about the controversial cable channel, a former insider from the world of Rupert Murdoch was quick with a response: “I don’t think people would believe it’s as concocted as it is; that stuff is just made up.�

http://www.readersupportednews.org/off- ... t-made-upq

According to studies, specifically by one UCLA study Fox NEWS is closer to center than the majority of either broadcast or print media. It's opinion programs lean pretty far to the right--though not as far as the extreme left wing media suggests. However, the News?

A whole lot closer to center than anybody but ABC. Everybody else leans so far to the left that they are in danger of falling off the teeter-totter. Certainly Fox News is less schizophrenic than the Wall Street Journal, which leans right in opinion...and far left in the news sections.

Whenever I find someone going on and on about how right wing Fox News is, I KNOW that the complainer is left wing. What they mean is that Fox News doesn't have a leftist bias, and so is uncomfortable for liberals.

...............for some odd reason, I've noticed that those who complain the most about Fox News like to get THEIR information from, oh,....CBS, the New York Times, the LA Times and the Huffington Post; all of which are universally acknowledged as leaning left. Far left.

But bias LEFT seems to be just ducky....and the irony is pretty telling.

(edited to change "ABC' to CBS...ABC is actually centrist. It's CBS that has fallen off the ship portside. )

I'm perfectly aware that the major medial outlets lean left; and if Fox wants to lean right, that's fine with me. But running an outright hit piece on Obama that could have been produced by the Tea Party, which even conservatives called irresponsible, and calling it a "news story" on a "news program," is WAY over the line. When you see CNN or even NBC do something that blatant, let me know.

You mean....like the forged papers CBS pulled on Bush...or the carefully edited 911 call from Zimmerman from NBC?....

PuLEEEZE.

"Two wrongs don't make a right," and all that. The question is, can Fox News be trusted?

Evidently more than CBS or NBC, certainly.

The answer is obviously "No." If you want to make a thread asking the same question about MSNBC, you'll find me voting the same way, though not QUITE as emphatically.

You are not happy about one story...that YOU call a "hit piece' (because you don't like it since you lean left yourself and really don't like stories that make you uncomfortable, politically) that "could have been produced by the Tea Party" (boy, if that doesn't scream 'political bias' I don't know what does....I'll bet you really LIKE Media Matters and think that, along with Dan Rather, that the 'story is true even if the papers aren't' about the Killian papers...and that there was NOTHING wrong in pulling that stunt two months before the election).

Or this one, which tickles me:

This morning CNN had headline news saying that Obamacare had been struck down, ruled unconstitutional. This was related TO Fox News, to Megyn Kelly and others, who ALMOST went along with CNN, but then said 'Stop...this isn't quite right; be patient with us while we sort this out."

Turns out that SCOTUS told Obama that he couldn't expand the COMMERCE clause to declare the mandate, but he COULD call it a tax (something that Obama has said over, and over, and over again that it was NOT...) as his lawyers argued in the argument portion of the case. FOX got that straightened out in spite of CNN.

Does anybody yell at CNN?

Nope. All the people I argue with about politics are making fun of Fox News, though.

Oh. Wait.

Didn't you just ask me to find something blatant about CNN that would indicate that it wasn't trustworthy?

(grin)

Okay, point taken. As a matter of fact, during the Bush administrations, I was a Republican, and I WAS outraged at the falsehoods and blatantly biased reporting from CBS and CNN. The obviously forged papers were the most egregious example of stealth campaigning on the part of a "news" network that I've ever seen. You are definitely right about that, and thanks for reminding me.

Even though I have (on many specific issues, but not all) begun to identify myself as a liberal (or, more properly, realized that I have always been one), I am still amused and puzzled by the Bush Derangement Syndrome STILL exhibited by the Left whenever George W's name comes up. I am not an ideologue for EITHER party; thanks for reminding me of the excesses of the "left" one.

Enh. Who's to trust? I guess read all you can from as many sources as you can and decide for yourself. Unfortunately, that leaves us to the mercy of our OWN biases.

[dianaiad]

<snip all the way to here>

Enh. Who's to trust? I guess read all you can from as many sources as you can and decide for yourself. Unfortunately, that leaves us to the mercy of our OWN biases.

That study I quoted?

Said that the most balanced news one could get would be if one watched ABC and Fox, both; they are the two sources closest to the center, though one leans slightly left and the other slightly right.

As for me, the opinion pieces, from ANYBODY, are fullabull.

...............and I am a..er.. I guess I'm a 'right leaning libertarian."

I vote Republican because the Libertarian party can't agree on anything, much less a candidate or a platform that would actually be consistent, much less have a chance of winning anything.

[sleepyhead]

The Republican media machine fooled me once when they claimed Al Gore said he invented the internet. I don't trust anything they say anymore.

>>>You mean....like the forged papers CBS pulled on Bush...or the carefully edited 911 call from Zimmerman from NBC?.... <<<

With regards to Zimmerman, my understanding is that it was certain individuals within NBC who edited the conversation. Has there been any evidence that NBC (by this I mean the individuals running NBC), were involved in editing this conversation? With regards to the forged papers, did CBS know they were forged at the time of airing?

The news hour, when presenting an issue, usually has individuals representing both sides of a topic. They also provide access where the audience can input there two cents.

[dianaiad]

The Republican media machine fooled me once when they claimed Al Gore said he invented the internet. I don't trust anything they say anymore.

>>>You mean....like the forged papers CBS pulled on Bush...or the carefully edited 911 call from Zimmerman from NBC?.... <<<

With regards to Zimmerman, my understanding is that it was certain individuals within NBC who edited the conversation. Has there been any evidence that NBC (by this I mean the individuals running NBC), were involved in editing this conversation? With regards to the forged papers, did CBS know they were forged at the time of airing?

OH, come on. the answer to both is yes and yes, or else neither story would have been AIRED.

However, even if it was just people working FOR the network, rather than those who ran it, who invented or altered the story, the responsibility is STILL that of the network for which they worked, since they did it on company time for the purpose of getting viewers and a 'good story' for the company. Not to mention that once a story is cleared for broadcasting, the responsibility for it is on the head of the folks who cleared it--and that, my friend, is the network.

And yes, this goes for anything Fox News does. too.

By the way, you are quite right. According to Snopes, Al Gore did not claim to have invented the internet. His exact quote was:

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet."

Now even SNOPES, even as they quarrel with the difference between 'invent' and 'create,' admits that the above statement was "clumsy (and perhaps self-serving)"

Going to Snopes and reading the entire quote from Al Gore won't help your position any, Sleepyhead. (grin) I mean, if THAT is what drove you away from the Republican Party, why didn't CBS's blatant electioneering fraud with the Killian papers drive you right back?

I mean, really; the Al Gore thing is having great fun with something that actually happened; Gore SAID that he created the internet...indeed, he claimed to have done it first; he 'took the initiative in creating the internet." His words, not mine. Going on to expand on that by taking credit for a whole lot of OTHER stuff he simply didn't do doesn't help matters any.

The Killian Papers? Straight up forgeries, deliberate. And yes, they were known to be forgeries. Or at least, 'they' took great care not to do anything that would establish for certain that they weren't...like, oh, vetting them.

The news hour, when presenting an issue, usually has individuals representing both sides of a topic. They also provide access where the audience can input there two cents.

What 'news hour' is that? YOU are describing an opinion/panel program, not a news program.

I have to ask: Sleepyhead, was that a real argument or did I just set myself up as a 'straightwoman' for your joke? I find it difficult to believe that you are seriously making this argument.

[sleepyhead]

Hello dianaide,

By news houir I meant the pbs news hour.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/

I didn't say it wasn't the responsibility of the various networks to ensure the news is accurate. Sometimes in good faith they might make a mistake when they accept something as proof when it turns out to be a forgery. Legitamate news sources, when they discover the information they broadcast was inacurate will apologise in sackcloth and ashes.

>>>Going on to expand on that by taking credit for a whole lot of OTHER stuff he simply didn't do doesn't help matters any. <<<

I'm not presently aware of him taking credit for something he didn't do.

>>>I have to ask: Sleepyhead, was that a real argument or did I just set myself up as a 'straightwoman' for your joke? I find it difficult to believe that you are seriously making this argument.<<<

It's really me.

>>>The Killian Papers? Straight up forgeries, deliberate. And yes, they were known to be forgeries. Or at least, 'they' took great care not to do anything that would establish for certain that they weren't...like, oh, vetting them. <<<

I don't see any reason to assume that Rather or those responsible for the broadcast new they were forgeries at the time of broadcast.

[dianaiad]

Hello dianaide,

By news houir I meant the pbs news hour.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/

I didn't say it wasn't the responsibility of the various networks to ensure the news is accurate. Sometimes in good faith they might make a mistake when they accept something as proof when it turns out to be a forgery. Legitamate news sources, when they discover the information they broadcast was inacurate will apologise in sackcloth and ashes.

Odd. I don't remember seeing any sack cloth or ashes on Rather. Indeed, I believe his quote was something along the lines of 'the story is true, even if the documents were false." He has continued to say pretty much that right up until last March, actually............even though the documents have been PROVEN to be false, and they were the only evidence that the story had any basis in truth.

Nope, no sack cloth and ashes there, either on the part of Rather, OR CBS...though they were eventually forced to fire some people; including Dan Rather. There is a rather large difference, you realize between repentance and having one's nose rubbed in it.

>>>Going on to expand on that by taking credit for a whole lot of OTHER stuff he simply didn't do doesn't help matters any. <<<

I'm not presently aware of him taking credit for something he didn't do.

Oh.

So you believe he DID create the internet?

Here's a list of people responsible for actually inventing/creating the internet, Please note.

Al Gore ain't on it.

He IS given credit, however, for coining the phrase 'information superhighway."

Clever....but not exactly the same thing.

>>>I have to ask: Sleepyhead, was that a real argument or did I just set myself up as a 'straightwoman' for your joke? I find it difficult to believe that you are seriously making this argument.<<<

It's really me.

Oh.
Dear.

>>>The Killian Papers? Straight up forgeries, deliberate. And yes, they were known to be forgeries. Or at least, 'they' took great care not to do anything that would establish for certain that they weren't...like, oh, vetting them. <<<

I don't see any reason to assume that Rather or those responsible for the broadcast new they were forgeries at the time of broadcast.

Oh, they knew. They had to know. After all, for a full WEEK after the broadcast they were claiming that those papers had been examined for accuracy by their own experts.....when they hadn't been. Why on earth would they lie about that if they didn't know there was something hinky about 'em?

Certainly MAPES knew.