The Rise and Fall of Fox News
- Thread starter Rich Lucibella
- Start date
There is a huge difference to me and I don't know if any of you have noticed. While Fox does lean to the right, they are not nearly as far right as the CNN and especially MSNBC are to the far left. MSNBC(Olberman)opens every show with a bashing or criticism of Bush/Republicans----regardless of what the biggest news story is of the day.:barf: Last night for example with all the conflict going on in Israel etc...their opening story was the civil suit brought by Valerie Plame??????
Here's the big difference IMO though----O'Reilly(while pompous) will present a point of view and almost always has 1 if not 2 people who disagree or argue the point. Sure he is loud and cuts people off sometimes, but he DOES present opposing views and usually sides to the right.
OTOH--CNN and especially MSNBC---will present a point of view and then turn to their guest who proceeds to AGREE with everything they have just said. No balance, no argueing or debate--just I'll bash and you follow in agreeement to my bash.
PS---there is 1 guy on MSNBC who does indeed do fair analysis without much leaning and that is Tucker Carlson. He will indeed present an idea and have a guest to counter discuss.
Here's the big difference IMO though----O'Reilly(while pompous) will present a point of view and almost always has 1 if not 2 people who disagree or argue the point. Sure he is loud and cuts people off sometimes, but he DOES present opposing views and usually sides to the right.
OTOH--CNN and especially MSNBC---will present a point of view and then turn to their guest who proceeds to AGREE with everything they have just said. No balance, no argueing or debate--just I'll bash and you follow in agreeement to my bash.
PS---there is 1 guy on MSNBC who does indeed do fair analysis without much leaning and that is Tucker Carlson. He will indeed present an idea and have a guest to counter discuss.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Keith is trying to keep alive by being a counter to O'Reilly. Mr. Falafel - Loofah. :barf:
Tucker is ok - while conservative he brindles at their more nutty types. Did you all read the article where he went an 'operator' type to Iraq with Kelly McCann - IIRC?
Don't see some of the FOX folks or Anne doing that.
Tucker is ok - while conservative he brindles at their more nutty types. Did you all read the article where he went an 'operator' type to Iraq with Kelly McCann - IIRC?
Don't see some of the FOX folks or Anne doing that.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
The fact that Fox isn't as "far right" in its propaganda war as others are "left", matters to me not in the least. Propaganda is propaganda and that's not what I watch news for.
I started watching the network because it was, for the most part, "fair and balanced". Today it is anything but. As to O'Reilly, he picks and chooses his topics and personal crusades (which are usually indistinguishable) just as he picks and chooses his guests; he calls for a Federal Law for every problem under the sun; the "guest" who sides with him always gets to open and close around the comments of the "opposition"; anytime you hear Bill O'Reilly say, "OK, I'll give you the last word", you can bet he's about to make himself a liar.
Even that's OK, were it just O'Reilly. But their straight news shows, starting with the abysmal Fox and Friends right up thru this abrasively boorish clown, Shepard Smith, cannot be distinguished from The Factor except in terms of format. Brit Hume is the only half-honest journalist on staff; Andy Napolitano and Dr. Isadore Rosenfeld are the only people worth watching any more.
In short, the network is a huge disappointment. It really sucks.
Rich
I started watching the network because it was, for the most part, "fair and balanced". Today it is anything but. As to O'Reilly, he picks and chooses his topics and personal crusades (which are usually indistinguishable) just as he picks and chooses his guests; he calls for a Federal Law for every problem under the sun; the "guest" who sides with him always gets to open and close around the comments of the "opposition"; anytime you hear Bill O'Reilly say, "OK, I'll give you the last word", you can bet he's about to make himself a liar.
Even that's OK, were it just O'Reilly. But their straight news shows, starting with the abysmal Fox and Friends right up thru this abrasively boorish clown, Shepard Smith, cannot be distinguished from The Factor except in terms of format. Brit Hume is the only half-honest journalist on staff; Andy Napolitano and Dr. Isadore Rosenfeld are the only people worth watching any more.
In short, the network is a huge disappointment. It really sucks.
Rich
Cowled_Wolfe
New member
The thing is, he doesn't just cut them off sometimes. Basically, he just uses a louder voice and more often than not prevents them from making their point. If he can't win a debate without preventing the other side from making a point un-harrassed, what does that say about him?
Cheers,
Wolfe.
I get a kick out of Shepard Smith's use of he word "chopper". I'd be willing to bet he doesn't know that it is really a helicopter and that chopper is a slang term. I can't remember ever hearing him use the word helicopter. But he's doing what they hired him to be, I guess ... a personality.
O'Reilly lost me when he went off on the NRA and gunnies in general. He was just astounded at their hardline stand on gun laws. NRA? Hardline? You've GOT to be kidding.
FOX News has gotten softer, no doubt. Their FOX News Alert is a joke.
Napolitano is a treat. So is Neil Cavuto. I'm even warming to Alan Combs.
The only show on CNN I will watch is Lou Dobbs.
A FOX News personality that I'm still trying to get used to is John Gibson (The Big Story). For some reason I associate him with a very pro-Clinton position during the Impeachment. Now he's to the right. I worry about my memory when things like that happen.
O'Reilly lost me when he went off on the NRA and gunnies in general. He was just astounded at their hardline stand on gun laws. NRA? Hardline? You've GOT to be kidding.
FOX News has gotten softer, no doubt. Their FOX News Alert is a joke.
Napolitano is a treat. So is Neil Cavuto. I'm even warming to Alan Combs.
The only show on CNN I will watch is Lou Dobbs. A FOX News personality that I'm still trying to get used to is John Gibson (The Big Story). For some reason I associate him with a very pro-Clinton position during the Impeachment. Now he's to the right. I worry about my memory when things like that happen.
Rich,
The fact that Fox isn't as "far right" in its propaganda war as others are "left", matters to me not in the least. Propaganda is propaganda and that's not what I watch news for.
I started watching the network because it was, for the most part, "fair and balanced". Today it is anything but. As to O'Reilly, he picks and chooses his topics and personal crusades (which are usually indistinguishable) just as he picks and chooses his guests; he calls for a Federal Law for every problem under the sun; the "guest" who sides with him always gets to open and close around the comments of the "opposition"; anytime you hear Bill O'Reilly say, "OK, I'll give you the last word", you can bet he's about to make himself a liar.
Even that's OK, were it just O'Reilly. But their straight news shows, starting with the abysmal Fox and Friends right up thru this abrasively boorish clown, Shepard Smith, cannot be distinguished from The Factor except in terms of format. Brit Hume is the only half-honest journalist on staff; Andy Napolitano and Dr. Isadore Rosenfeld are the only people worth watching any more.
In short, the network is a huge disappointment. It really sucks.
Rich
1. To me there is a difference. Is stealing, stealing? Is taking a candy bar from the store the same as robbing a bank? If you watch for news at 8:00 you have 3 choices essentially---FOX, CNN or MSNBC. The fact that 1 is less biased DOES mean something.
2. Regarding O'Reilly---I must disagree--he generally picks a topic, presents his point of view(sometimes slanted sometimes not) BUT, almost always presents a guest with a differing point of view to the fact that he says his usual "tell me where I'm going wrong" spiel. Your other choice is Olbermann who presents a Bush bash topic to start then proceeds with a guest who always agrees with him to where he basically says "how right am I"? Of the 2 I would say fair and balanced has to go to FOX for the simple reason of AT LEAST presenting an opposing arguement.
The fact that Fox isn't as "far right" in its propaganda war as others are "left", matters to me not in the least. Propaganda is propaganda and that's not what I watch news for.
I started watching the network because it was, for the most part, "fair and balanced". Today it is anything but. As to O'Reilly, he picks and chooses his topics and personal crusades (which are usually indistinguishable) just as he picks and chooses his guests; he calls for a Federal Law for every problem under the sun; the "guest" who sides with him always gets to open and close around the comments of the "opposition"; anytime you hear Bill O'Reilly say, "OK, I'll give you the last word", you can bet he's about to make himself a liar.
Even that's OK, were it just O'Reilly. But their straight news shows, starting with the abysmal Fox and Friends right up thru this abrasively boorish clown, Shepard Smith, cannot be distinguished from The Factor except in terms of format. Brit Hume is the only half-honest journalist on staff; Andy Napolitano and Dr. Isadore Rosenfeld are the only people worth watching any more.
In short, the network is a huge disappointment. It really sucks.
Rich
1. To me there is a difference. Is stealing, stealing? Is taking a candy bar from the store the same as robbing a bank? If you watch for news at 8:00 you have 3 choices essentially---FOX, CNN or MSNBC. The fact that 1 is less biased DOES mean something.
2. Regarding O'Reilly---I must disagree--he generally picks a topic, presents his point of view(sometimes slanted sometimes not) BUT, almost always presents a guest with a differing point of view to the fact that he says his usual "tell me where I'm going wrong" spiel. Your other choice is Olbermann who presents a Bush bash topic to start then proceeds with a guest who always agrees with him to where he basically says "how right am I"? Of the 2 I would say fair and balanced has to go to FOX for the simple reason of AT LEAST presenting an opposing arguement.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Nope. Reading comprehension includes the mandate that we separate opinion from claimed-to-be fact. I would think that this entire thread screams "personal opinion". Nothing wrong with that....opinion is valid basis for discussion (on both sides), yes? "Source please" is really only relavent when someone makes an obvious statement of fact which we wish to question.
Rich
Harley Quinn
Moderator
Good old days of Hearst are gone.
To say deja vu?
Is Patty in charge of that chain of papers? Some times it is like the roll of the dice.
You get what comes up.
HQ
To say deja vu?
Is Patty in charge of that chain of papers? Some times it is like the roll of the dice.
You get what comes up.HQ
Redworm,
There would be no definitive proof, only evidentuary. As noted O'Reilly almost always presents guest with opposing points of view. (as many say he may overwhelm BUT at least he presents opposition).Many times he will have a Juan Williams or Bob Beckel on.
Hannity and Colmes always disagreewith each other and whoever the guest is conservative or liberal, 1 will agree and the other will disagree. They usually offset from night to night with which type of guest they invite(ex North or Colter then next time might be Sen. Ford or NY Times editors).
Olbermann always has someone who agrees with everything he says and NEVER has opposing views---only his commentary and stories that bash, bash, bash. CNN is just as bad.
So if presented with a case of at LEAST presenting opposing arguements vs Commentary and agreeing guests as evidence---it should be pretty clear cut as to which is more biased then the other---IMO.
There would be no definitive proof, only evidentuary. As noted O'Reilly almost always presents guest with opposing points of view. (as many say he may overwhelm BUT at least he presents opposition).Many times he will have a Juan Williams or Bob Beckel on.
Hannity and Colmes always disagreewith each other and whoever the guest is conservative or liberal, 1 will agree and the other will disagree. They usually offset from night to night with which type of guest they invite(ex North or Colter then next time might be Sen. Ford or NY Times editors).
Olbermann always has someone who agrees with everything he says and NEVER has opposing views---only his commentary and stories that bash, bash, bash. CNN is just as bad.
So if presented with a case of at LEAST presenting opposing arguements vs Commentary and agreeing guests as evidence---it should be pretty clear cut as to which is more biased then the other---IMO.
As far as CNN being as far left as FOX is right---I would have to point out that there are a great number of guests/hosts who are Liberal who regularly appear on FOX such as NPR, Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, Alan Colmes etc...I would be hard pressed on the other hand to find such at CNN. MSNBC does have 1 in Tucker Carlson.
CNN, Fox, NBC, whatever. Left or Right? --Here's what they all are: Authoritarian. They all think The Government Knows What's Best -- as long as it is run by members of their party, whichever one that happens to be.
Guess what? Left or right, you lose and government wins, cheered on by whichever cheering section in the media is on their side and being jeered by the loyal opposition not for interfering but because their Man On Horseback would have handed down better edicts.
Watch the news if you have to, but understand it is at least half propaganda and the main purpose any of it serves is as filler between the ads.
Personally, I prefer the Daily Show. Not because I agree with their poltics, which are often abysmal, nor becase I agree with their slant, which is often to the left, but because the show is skeptical that anything good can come from Washington and is none too serious about it. When the government's being run by malign clowns -- and it is and has been all my life -- that's the best way to approach the news.
We don't need new, improved philosopher-kings, we need to get rid of 'em.
IMO, YMMV, professional driver on a closed course, etc.
Guess what? Left or right, you lose and government wins, cheered on by whichever cheering section in the media is on their side and being jeered by the loyal opposition not for interfering but because their Man On Horseback would have handed down better edicts.
Watch the news if you have to, but understand it is at least half propaganda and the main purpose any of it serves is as filler between the ads.
Personally, I prefer the Daily Show. Not because I agree with their poltics, which are often abysmal, nor becase I agree with their slant, which is often to the left, but because the show is skeptical that anything good can come from Washington and is none too serious about it. When the government's being run by malign clowns -- and it is and has been all my life -- that's the best way to approach the news.
We don't need new, improved philosopher-kings, we need to get rid of 'em.
IMO, YMMV, professional driver on a closed course, etc.
... love it...