Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

SNL and FOX

Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2009 7:55:52 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ehh, not funny, I didn't even smile once. The SNL Olbermann parody was really funny though, or the SNL CNN Presidential debate too. The skit wasn't representative either. One, Juan Williams is a flaming liberal in love with Barack Obama. Two, Shep Smith is liberal, and never would act like that. Three, Greta is pretty much centrist, and never interrupts. Four, FOX actually has Democratic politicians and strategists on it's show, and let's them speak - O'Reilly is the only one who really interrupts. /
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2009 8:31:08 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I watch Olbermann and Maddow fairly regularly and have never seen an invited n opposing viewpoint. Can anyone name when that happened?

A couple weeks ago Joe Trippi was on Maddow. He was obviously anticipated to join the choir of whatever nonsense Maddow was pushing. However, he came up with an analysis completely contrary. Maddow didn't know what to do, and ended up saying, "We'll just have to agree to disagree." with no rebuttal. She was truly dumbfounded by a modest dissent.

O'Reilly and Hannity do give opponents short shrift, but opposing viewpoints are there. Bob Bekel does a good job of presenting the Democrats in the hostile Hannity environment, for example. But why is it that Fox opinion shows are criticized for giving short time to opponents, when the LIbs on MSNBC are given no time whatsoever?

Incidentally, more Democrats and Independents watch Fox than all the other cable networks combined.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2009 8:39:33 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/11/2009 8:13:41 AM, JBlake wrote:
At 11/11/2009 8:06:42 AM, theLwerd wrote:
I have a similar statistic for FOX that I was saving for a debate.

Post it!

FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), a media watch dog group, researched 19 weeks of the 1 on 1 guests who appeared on Fox's Brit Hume's Special Report. FYI, Hume is considered an anchor - not a commentator. Of the 56 partisan guests on Special Report between January and May, 50 were Republicans and six were Democrats -- a greater than 8 to 1 imbalance. In other words, 89 percent of guests with a party affiliation were Republicans [1].

The same source mentions CNN's Wolf Blitzer being covered over the same time period; Of Blitzer's 67 partisan guests, 38 were Republicans and 29 were Democrats -- a 57 percent to 43 percent split in favor of Republicans. That's a lot more "fair and balanced" wouldn't you think? I find it hilarious that whenever I criticize Fox, people come back complaining about MSNBC. I absolutely hate MSNBC and never watch that crap either, so what's their point, I wonder?

[1] http://www.fair.org...
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2009 8:48:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/11/2009 8:43:31 AM, Nags wrote:
At 11/11/2009 8:39:33 AM, theLwerd wrote:
http://www.fair.org...

"July/August 2001"

8+ years...

Oh, true. I'll have to look for an updated stat. Still, it completely ignores my point... who cares about Keith Olbermann? Not I. Finding that MSNBC is just as bad as Fox doesn't negate the fact that Fox is bad... especially since I don't watch MSNBC. I can say that I put on Fox for at LEAST 10 minutes a day; the last time I ever even saw MSNBC on a TV screen was literally a year ago. Ergo, moot point.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2009 8:53:41 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Not to mention that "Olbermann Watch" is a BLOG. Roy would tell you that it's HARDLY a credible source of information.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2009 9:05:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Further, one thing I hate about Fox is that when they DO have "liberals" on, it's always weak liberals who make the party look bad. They choose wimpy people (Colmes vs. Hannity? Give me a break.), scary people (Al Sharpton has no business being the voice of the Democratic party) or liberals who AGREE with Fox. This is just one of many sources which cites how Fox specifically shows liberals who agree with them on many issues [http://www.salon.com...]. I've been following Fox's bias hardcore since the 2004 election. It's disturbing. All "news" is biased but CNN and BBC *far* outshine Fox in terms of balanced reporting. Anyone who says otherwise is seriously delusional.
President of DDO
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2009 4:24:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I always enjoy when FNC-haters talk about bias. The reason FNC was created was to establish some balance where practically none existed.

So every time I hear an FNC complaint, it just feels like comeuppance. In other words, it must be working.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2009 4:30:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/11/2009 4:24:05 PM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
I always enjoy when FNC-haters talk about bias. The reason FNC was created was to establish some balance where practically none existed.

So, the excuse of FOX's bias is that it "balances" out the spectrum in terms of media outlets.

That is a sad excuse. The goal of any news organization should be to keep their coverage balanced, not "balance the media" by introducing a right-wing station. The latter only furthers the sad cause of news media to become even more distorted and biased.

News shouldn't be about bias and so-called "balance" - it should be about information and truth. Anything less is just a mockery.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2009 4:35:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/11/2009 4:24:05 PM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
I always enjoy when FNC-haters talk about bias. The reason FNC was created was to establish some balance where practically none existed.

So every time I hear an FNC complaint, it just feels like comeuppance. In other words, it must be working.

It would be one thing if Fox was just ring wing. There's three problems with what they actually are;

1. They don't ackowledge that they're biased. 'Far and Balanced' my foot.
2. They distort facts. Ever wonder why a sizable margin of Faux-News viewers thought there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, or that WMDs were found? A much bigger margin than CNN or NBC viewers.
3. They don't cover conservative issues, they cover GOP issues. While NBC tends to cover left-wing issues, they have no issue disagreeing with the Democrats. What's more, their facts are usually right and their biased doesn't bleed into their straight news (much.) CNN covers the main political issues and NPR covers issues that actually matter. FoxNews covers what the GOP is talking about.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2009 4:38:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/11/2009 4:30:35 PM, Volkov wrote:
So, the excuse of FOX's bias is that it "balances" out the spectrum in terms of media outlets.

That is a sad excuse. The goal of any news organization should be to keep their coverage balanced, not "balance the media" by introducing a right-wing station. The latter only furthers the sad cause of news media to become even more distorted and biased.

News shouldn't be about bias and so-called "balance" - it should be about information and truth. Anything less is just a mockery.

Ehh, hate to break it to you Volkov - but the goal of any organization is to make $$$, not to be balanced. With Fox's news coverage and their slogans, they make News Corp lots of $$$. Fox has capitalized (pun intended) on the fact that every other news network is liberally biased, and have given the consumers the oppurtunity to witness a more right-wing version of the news. And it's not like any other news network is less guilty than Fox, all of them portray themselves as the pinacle of journalism and what-not, but nobody is. I think the animosity towards Fox is mostly for-not.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2009 4:48:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/11/2009 4:38:19 PM, Nags wrote:
Ehh, hate to break it to you Volkov - but the goal of any organization is to make $$$, not to be balanced. With Fox's news coverage and their slogans, they make News Corp lots of $$$. Fox has capitalized (pun intended) on the fact that every other news network is liberally biased, and have given the consumers the oppurtunity to witness a more right-wing version of the news. And it's not like any other news network is less guilty than Fox, all of them portray themselves as the pinacle of journalism and what-not, but nobody is. I think the animosity towards Fox is mostly for-not.

Granted that you're right and the goal of these organizations is to make money, the fact that money is made at the expense of integrity is pathetic. Its why I like public broadcasters like CBC, BBC, C-SPAN and CPAC - the bias is almost non-existent, or only occurs sparingly based on the usual whims of journalists, and even then it isn't bad, because you can actually distinguish it. You also don't get all these stupid bells and whistles that are absolutely stupid (well, you used to in the case of CBC) and you get actual news instead of the crap that you get with FOX and MSNBC.

But, whatever, that is my personal preference - if others want to take part in the mockery of news that exists on most US stations, be my guest.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2009 5:02:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/11/2009 4:30:35 PM, Volkov wrote:

So, the excuse of FOX's bias is that it "balances" out the spectrum in terms of media outlets.

Kudos on the loose interpretation of "to establish some balance."

That is a sad excuse. The goal of any news organization should be to keep their coverage balanced, not "balance the media" by introducing a right-wing station. The latter only furthers the sad cause of news media to become even more distorted and biased.

When practically no impartiality exists, and a different perspective is admitted, it establishes some balance where practically none existed. Im(or less-)partiality among traditional partiality establishes some balance.

News shouldn't be about bias and so-called "balance" - it should be about information and truth. Anything less is just a mockery.

And when some is presented without a liberal spin, whether it has conservative spin or no spin at all, it creates some balance.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2009 5:09:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/11/2009 5:02:03 PM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
When practically no impartiality exists, and a different perspective is admitted, it establishes some balance where practically none existed. Im(or less-)partiality among traditional partiality establishes some balance.

It is as if the entire point flew right over your head!

Maybe it is because I have different standards, I don't know - what I do know is that I would prefer seeing a news agency attempt to relate the news in the most unbiased fashion realistically possible, rather than further the advance of more distorted media and partisan bickering. Is wanting a media not in the pockets of political parties or lobbyists that bad of a cause?

And when some is presented without a liberal spin, whether it has conservative spin or no spin at all, it creates some balance.

If your idea of balance means "distort information to suit our needs," then the media culture of the United States is far more pathetic than I've ever dreamed.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2009 5:21:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Your stance didn't go over my head. I had just said, "Im(or less-)partiality among traditional partiality establishes some balance."

I like C-SPAN, as well. It's the best for watching speeches/convention coverage.

This was covered in a thread over the summer. Not enough people differentiate between panelists/pundits and anchors. Even when anchors have panelists on the program, that portion is clearly an opinion portion.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2009 5:55:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Where's the fact check on the Fox News SNL sketch, huh? Where is it?

They do anything to defend the president from ANYTHING.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2009 7:09:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The Fox skit was funny, as were the Olbermann and presidential debate skits. There's nothing wrong with poking fun at your own side. I'd say a number of members here could stand to realize that =P
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Neumax
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2009 8:39:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Fox is extremely leftist. The same thing happened when Bush was President.

Btw, I LOVE Saturday Night Live. Lol. :P
A true optimist would think that the glass is half awesome.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2009 6:22:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ehh, hate to break it to you Volkov - but the goal of any organization is to make $$$, not to be balanced.

That's good for Fox, because if news organizations survived based on ability to remain objective and fair, Fox would be history. They have realized that it's better business to be entertaining and provocative than it is to maintain integrity. The free market has no function for ethics so Fox will do quite well for years to come, no doubt.

With Fox's news coverage and their slogans, they make News Corp lots of $$$. Fox has capitalized (pun intended) on the fact that every other news network is liberally biased

This is plain BS. I've went through those studies L was talking about earlier, and they were pretty convincing that Fox is the only real source of bias. There are liberal anchors, of course, but overall the stations that are considered liberal are actually very "fair and balanced". The notion of the "liberal drive-by media" is an excuse for people like you to try not to feel so bad that Fox is so brazenly unethical in how it conducts itself. I like Fox and I don't want to see them go away, because it is a good mirror for the Republican party. Republicans fail across the board on ethics of any kind, and it is only fitting that the news station that supports them follows suit.

and have given the consumers the oppurtunity to witness a more right-wing version of the news. And it's not like any other news network is less guilty than Fox, all of them portray themselves as the pinacle of journalism and what-not, but nobody is. I think the animosity towards Fox is mostly for-not.

Yes, we are experiencing the right-wing version of the news alright! I couldn't have said it better myself. Just about any other station IS a pinnacle of journalism when compared to Fox.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2009 6:25:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/21/2009 6:22:26 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
That's good for Fox, because if news organizations survived based on ability to remain objective and fair, Fox would be history.

As would every other mainstream news network.
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2009 10:14:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/21/2009 6:22:26 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
That's good for Fox, because if news organizations survived based on ability to remain objective and fair, Fox would be history. They have realized that it's better business to be entertaining and provocative than it is to maintain integrity. The free market has no function for ethics so Fox will do quite well for years to come, no doubt.

Just like every other news network.

This is plain BS. I've went through those studies L was talking about earlier, and they were pretty convincing that Fox is the only real source of bias. There are liberal anchors, of course, but overall the stations that are considered liberal are actually very "fair and balanced". The notion of the "liberal drive-by media" is an excuse for people like you to try not to feel so bad that Fox is so brazenly unethical in how it conducts itself.

Yes. FAIR is a progresive media watchdog group. Of course Fox is the most biased, and no other news networks are liberally biased. Media Matters would have the same reports. However, Media Research Center would have every network liberally biased and Fox rated as fair and balanced. Citing selected studies makes you feel better about yourself, but it's not the truth.

I like Fox and I don't want to see them go away, because it is a good mirror for the Republican party.

Good. Me too.

Republicans fail across the board on ethics of any kind, and it is only fitting that the news station that supports them follows suit.

Lmao.. lmao.. lmao.. of course, of course.

Yes, we are experiencing the right-wing version of the news alright! I couldn't have said it better myself. Just about any other station IS a pinnacle of journalism when compared to Fox.

If that's what you think, well, I guess you can keep being delusional.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2009 11:31:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/21/2009 10:14:38 PM, Nags wrote:
At 11/21/2009 6:22:26 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
Yes, we are experiencing the right-wing version of the news alright! I couldn't have said it better myself. Just about any other station IS a pinnacle of journalism when compared to Fox.

If that's what you think, well, I guess you can keep being delusional.

Wasn't it just about a week ago you were banned for being insulting? Within the last few days, I've noticed you call Rob ridiculous and now delusional. I'm not saying these are ban-worthy but 1) I don't know what other charming things you've said to other members and 2) Phil's standard of ban-worthiness falls well below yours or mine.

I remember you promising him you'd be more tame in your behavior and I'm wondering if this qualifies. It's not difficult to attack someone's arguments or position without attacking them directly, especially when dealing with a member like Rob who rarely swings first.

Anyway, this isn't my way of standing up for Rob but rather trying to make sure you're aware of the potential repercussions of this particular style of engagement so soon after your return =D
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2009 11:49:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Its a debate site. I have to agree that what Rob1's post was for the majority was one-sided bull-crap that questions nothing.

Bash the right side, the left side are above that.
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2009 1:45:36 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/21/2009 11:49:04 PM, johngriswald wrote:
Its a debate site. I have to agree that what Rob1's post was for the majority was one-sided bull-crap that questions nothing.

Bash the right side, the left side are above that [boldface added].

Aww, just when I thought you had a decent head on your shoulders....

If you're going to criticize FNC, fine; but don't try to support your stance with complete nonsense.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2009 1:47:01 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/22/2009 1:45:36 AM, USAPitBull63 wrote:

Aww, just when I thought you had a decent head on your shoulders....

If you're going to criticize FNC, fine; but don't try to support your stance with complete nonsense.

Okay, the boldface button went crazy of its own accord. I didn't mean for my whole post to have it.