FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


MSNBC, the 'anti FOX' news.





Alaskacameradude
The topic says it best....

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2010/11/msnbc_election_night_hectoring.html

and

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2010/11/msnbc_odonnell_election_night.html

Nice 'unbiased' reporting here.....
ocalhoun
They do seem to have taken the plunge and decided to be the mirror image of FOX...

The particular point that I noticed them changing from 'slightly biased' to 'full-punditry' was when I saw several of their ridiculously strong anti-gun stories... several in a row.

Not that I think this is a particularly bad thing... There needs to be something to counterbalance FOX's punditry.
watersoul
Sorry if if it's a bit off topic but it's definitely related.
News reported today in the UK:
Quote:
News Corporation has said it wants to buy the 61% of BSkyB it does not own.

The inquiry will look into "media plurality" - the degree to which news outlets are concentrated under one organisation's ownership.

Rupert Murdoch's News Corp also owns News International, which owns the Sun, News of the World, Times and Sunday Times.

These account for a third of the UK's national newspaper circulation,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11691728

If agreed it will mean that the entire mainstream satelite television channels of the UK will be owned by the same person/organisation.

Quote:
Fox News Channel (FNC), commonly referred to as Fox News or Fox, is a cable and satellite television news channel owned by the Fox Entertainment Group, a subsidiary of News Corporation. As of April 2009, it is available to 102 million households in the United States and further to viewers internationally, broadcasting primarily out of its New York City studios.

The channel was created by Australian-American media mogul Rupert Murdoch,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel

I don't know the story of Fox, as I live over here on the overpopulated rock known as Britain, but when "the masses" take their news sources from essentially one man's organisation, it cannot be healthy...can it? (especially when this organisation effectively covers most of the "western" world)
ocalhoun
watersoul wrote:


I don't know the story of Fox, as I live over here on the overpopulated rock known as Britain, but when "the masses" take their news sources from essentially one man's organisation, it cannot be healthy...can it? (especially when this organisation effectively covers most of the "western" world)

No, it certainly can't be a good thing.
(And it doesn't have to be just one man either, a 'good 'ol boy's' club, or even just a polite agreement between media leaders could have the same results.)

Perhaps anti-monopoly laws need to be even harsher when applied to the media, especially any media claiming to present the news... Or, since TV stations are assigned by government entity, perhaps a limit could be placed on how many TV stations one person or one group of people can control.
liljp617
No, it's not healthy. There's a reason media in the US is largely terrible, biased, and almost all the same. It takes only a few minutes of research to see this reason -- go look at who owns the US media. If memory serves me, there's 4-5 corporations deciding what's in the overwhelming majority of US mainstream media.
Alaskacameradude
A variety of ideas is good, however, if you are going to bash FOX for being 'biased' I don't see how
anyone who is honest with themselves can say that these guys are not biased as well.....and some on
these boards have told me I was crazy in the past for suggesting this....In 'their' point of view,
FOX is the ONLY news that is biased (probably because they refuse to recognize the liberal bias in
any other newscasts because it agrees with their world view.)
standready
Almost all newsgroups are biased in one direction or another by those who runs them. I do not watch/listen/read just one when I am trying to get insight on a subject.
News used to about giving actual facts not releasing slanted stories.
ocalhoun
standready wrote:
Almost all newsgroups are biased in one direction or another by those who runs them.

Which is why I'd love to see all news/political mass media be required to label themselves by their bias... (With 'unbiased' not being a choice.)
It would at least let the more dimwitted viewers realize that they might not be getting the straight story every time, and let them know where they could go to get the other side of it.
liljp617
Media in the US was never about the facts. Media went hand-in-hand with politicians (even the "infallible" Founding Fathers) from the beginning. It could perhaps even be argued that the media today has more integrity and is more disconnected from politicians than it was in the late 1700s/early 1800s. Not that that's saying much, because it's still terrible. But really if you read into the direct relations politicians in those times had with newspapers, it's pretty insane.
ocalhoun
liljp617 wrote:
It could perhaps even be argued that the media today has more integrity and is more disconnected from politicians than it was in the late 1700s/early 1800s.

Well, yes, the main difference now is that the media claims to be independent and unbiased.
Back in that day, it was customary for media outlets to be openly biased for a given cause.
(And as I'm sure you can surmise from my previous post, I'd take open bias over concealed bias any day.)
jwellsy
What is the difference between all the attacks on Fox and the attacks on the only anti-Chavez TV station in Venezuela?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/18/globovision-last-anti-cha_n_204646.html
deanhills
jwellsy wrote:
What is the difference between all the attacks on Fox and the attacks on the only anti-Chavez TV station in Venezuela?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/18/globovision-last-anti-cha_n_204646.html
The one is in a democratic country where at least some free speech is allowed, and the other in a dictatorial country. Globovision is the last of the "free speech" media stations standing.

I don't think the US will do anything to remove Fox. People just love to hate Fox, hence why its stats are through the roof in comparison with the other stations. It is a very successful broadcasting station, and actually trading successfully on the controversy that always surrounds its news reporting and talk shows.
liljp617
jwellsy wrote:
What is the difference between all the attacks on Fox and the attacks on the only anti-Chavez TV station in Venezuela?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/18/globovision-last-anti-cha_n_204646.html


Really?
standready
deanhills wrote:
jwellsy wrote:
What is the difference between all the attacks on Fox and the attacks on the only anti-Chavez TV station in Venezuela?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/18/globovision-last-anti-cha_n_204646.html
The one is in a democratic country where at least some free speech is allowed, and the other in a dictatorial country. Globovision is the last of the "free speech" media stations standing.


Very correct, deanhills. I am fortunate to live in a country where I won't be executed for saying what is on my mind about almost anything.

deanhills wrote:
I don't think the US will do anything to remove Fox. People just love to hate Fox, hence why its stats are through the roof in comparison with the other stations. It is a very successful broadcasting station, and actually trading successfully on the controversy that always surrounds its news reporting and talk shows.


It would be very interesting if they tried remove and others. Hey a new reality show for FOX! "US verses the Press"
deanhills
standready wrote:
It would be very interesting if they tried remove and others. Hey a new reality show for FOX! "US verses the Press"
Actually it would be an excellent topic for areality show for the other stations as well, but yes FOX's probably would be much more colourful in its presentation. Smile
gandalfthegrey
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow is the only news talk show host I can tolerate watching.
will22
I found it somewhat disappointing when MSNBC started trying to match the antics on Fox News. You know things are starting to get really juvenile when reporters/pundits start making use of photoshopped images of politicians.

Keith Olbermann is without a doubt MSNBC's answer Bill O'Reilly. And it's funny how responding to Bill O'Reilly in such a partisan way is only giving fuel to O'Reilly's, "CULTURE WAR!" obsession.
jwellsy
This is pretty funny.
Alaskacameradude
jwellsy wrote:
This is pretty funny.


Wow, nice post. Watching quotes like 'Tea Party nutjob Rand Paul' from MSNBC commentators
makes me wonder how ANY person with any degree of honesty can say that MSNBC is
'unbiased'. But as I'e said before, I used to work in TV news, so I already knew this....
Navigator
Globovision and RCTV (Radio Caracas TV) have a presence in Cable, RCTV was removed only from the public airwaves AFAIK.
ocalhoun
gandalfthegrey wrote:
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow is the only news talk show host I can tolerate watching.

You can tolerate watching even one!?!

You have more endurance than me, that's for sure.
jwellsy
PMSNBC does have a good show called "Your Business". It's worth watching and I look forward to it each week.
Scroll down to the bottom of this page and check out some of the show videos.
http://www.openforum.com/yourbusinesstv
deanhills
jwellsy wrote:
PMSNBC does have a good show called "Your Business". It's worth watching and I look forward to it each week.
Scroll down to the bottom of this page and check out some of the show videos.
http://www.openforum.com/yourbusinesstv
Thanks jwellsy. I'm going to check it out on their Websites as well. Max Keiser of Russia Today Channel also has good shows. If you are interested in these kind of shows. It is known as the Keiser-Report. If you can't get Russia Today where you are, all of his programmes are easy to get in Youtube.
jwellsy
Thanks for that Keiser-Report link. I'd love to watch Max Keiser and Gilbert Godfrey drink each other under the table.

We don't get the Russia Today channel. But, I do like that Keiser Report. The Your Business show is more focused on sales, marketing and business management.

That whole Russia Today channel sounds interesting. We do get a station on China that has some interesting programs.
http://english.cntv.cn/01/index.shtml
deanhills
jwellsy wrote:
That whole Russia Today channel sounds interesting. We do get a station on China that has some interesting programs.
http://english.cntv.cn/01/index.shtml
Russia Today is like a breath of fresh air, as most of the other Channels always have the same news that one sees over and over again even in different Channels. Russia Today has some Russian news too, but is really very International with lots of US input as well. Would be interesting to see who the Board of Directors are.

By the way, I can't get Russia Today where I am in the UAE, but it is available in Dubai. I'm sure if I can get hold of a technician however, I would be able to get it. If Dubai can get it, I'm pretty sure you may be able to get it in the United States in the next year or two. I wish there could be more Channels like Russia Today, as it is not only Fox News which seems to be irritating, CNN to me is also a bit over the top sometimes. BBC International is a bit better.
gs-resume
Please remember that news outlets in the US are primarily owned by publicly held corporations which have obligations to their shareholders to make a profit. The news consuming public simply represents potential market share. By catering to viewers w/ distinct ideologies, the news outlets are shoring up ad revenue.
handfleisch
gs-resume wrote:
Please remember that news outlets in the US are primarily owned by publicly held corporations which have obligations to their shareholders to make a profit. The news consuming public simply represents potential market share. By catering to viewers w/ distinct ideologies, the news outlets are shoring up ad revenue.


Yes but ideology sometimes wins over pure profit motive. In other words, if an organization like FOX or MSNBC is making money anyway, they can and do engage in politics (and I would argue that FOX from the start was nothing but a business plan to make right wing propaganda into a profit-making business by swamping the market).

And the latest news shows MSNBC might not be the anti-FOX that people hope for, since they just let go their "most dominant liberal voice in a cable-television world" -- Keith Olbermann. I believe his show was the most popular political show they had (I don't know for sure and I have never watched it) so what's up with that? Also remember that Phil Donahue was overtly fired and had his show canceled for opposing the Iraq invasion during the war hysteria days. If that is not obviously corporate censorship, overtly controlling the range of opinion to exclude strong antiwar voices and voices in opposition to the neocon agenda, that what is it?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110123/ap_on_en_tv/us_tv_olbermann
Quote:
MSNBC spokesman Jeremy Gaines insisted Olbermann's exit had nothing to do with the acquisition of parent company NBC Universal by Comcast, which received regulatory approval Tuesday.
yeah right.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
gs-resume wrote:
Please remember that news outlets in the US are primarily owned by publicly held corporations which have obligations to their shareholders to make a profit. The news consuming public simply represents potential market share. By catering to viewers w/ distinct ideologies, the news outlets are shoring up ad revenue.


Yes but ideology sometimes wins over pure profit motive. In other words, if an organization like FOX or MSNBC is making money anyway, they can and do engage in politics (and I would argue that FOX from the start was nothing but a business plan to make right wing propaganda into a profit-making business by swamping the market).

Afraid you're a bit misguided on that one.
The fox news corporation is driven by one thing: ratings.
It just so happens that their biased coverage attracts large segments of viewers, increasing ratings, which is why they do it.
To paraphrase fox's CEO: "If two dogs having sex would raise ratings, I'd put it on the air."


That doesn't make what they do any less reprehensible, but it's important to know the true motivations of why people do things.
jwellsy
How many episodes of Countdown did Olbermann miss due to his indefinite suspension?
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
gs-resume wrote:
Please remember that news outlets in the US are primarily owned by publicly held corporations which have obligations to their shareholders to make a profit. The news consuming public simply represents potential market share. By catering to viewers w/ distinct ideologies, the news outlets are shoring up ad revenue.


Yes but ideology sometimes wins over pure profit motive. In other words, if an organization like FOX or MSNBC is making money anyway, they can and do engage in politics (and I would argue that FOX from the start was nothing but a business plan to make right wing propaganda into a profit-making business by swamping the market).

Afraid you're a bit misguided on that one.
The fox news corporation is driven by one thing: ratings.
It just so happens that their biased coverage attracts large segments of viewers, increasing ratings, which is why they do it.
To paraphrase fox's CEO: "If two dogs having sex would raise ratings, I'd put it on the air."


That doesn't make what they do any less reprehensible, but it's important to know the true motivations of why people do things.

So you believe the FOX CEO and I'm misguided. Again, yeah right.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Yes but ideology sometimes wins over pure profit motive. In other words, if an organization like FOX or MSNBC is making money anyway, they can and do engage in politics (and I would argue that FOX from the start was nothing but a business plan to make right wing propaganda into a profit-making business by swamping the market).
This has to be a contradiction in terms. FOX is making money, because its objective is to make money. And in order to make money in the media business one has to have high ratings. FOX's focus in every programme it has is getting the highest ratings. Even if ratings are high by other TV Stations' standards, and should drop at FOX, FOX would tend to can it.

Accusing FOX as some or other right wing conspiracy type TV station to me is not very rational thinking. What may appeal more to reason is that their political programs are very controversial, and I would not be surprised if their are more non-right wing people watching these programs, so that they can learn what the right-wingers are up to, than right-wingers themselves. Almost the equivalent of boxing events. People love to hate FOX, but at the same time are curious, want to know what it is up to and guys who are interested in politics love to hack it to pieces, and of course need to watch FOX to get their facts straight, so that seems to be driving the ratings as well.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

So you believe the FOX CEO and I'm misguided. Again, yeah right.


My information: Directly from the source.
Your information: ?
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Yes but ideology sometimes wins over pure profit motive. In other words, if an organization like FOX or MSNBC is making money anyway, they can and do engage in politics (and I would argue that FOX from the start was nothing but a business plan to make right wing propaganda into a profit-making business by swamping the market).
This has to be a contradiction in terms. FOX is making money, because its objective is to make money. And in order to make money in the media business one has to have high ratings. FOX's focus in every programme it has is getting the highest ratings. Even if ratings are high by other TV Stations' standards, and should drop at FOX, FOX would tend to can it.

Accusing FOX as some or other right wing conspiracy type TV station to me is not very rational thinking. What may appeal more to reason is that their political programs are very controversial, and I would not be surprised if their are more non-right wing people watching these programs, so that they can learn what the right-wingers are up to, than right-wingers themselves. Almost the equivalent of boxing events. People love to hate FOX, but at the same time are curious, want to know what it is up to and guys who are interested in politics love to hack it to pieces, and of course need to watch FOX to get their facts straight, so that seems to be driving the ratings as well.


Basically FOX is where people go when Comedy Central isn't playing anything good. And if nothing good is on FOX, they go to MSNBC. If nothing is good on MSNBC....well who knows what they do!?

In other words, people like to laugh, and Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann (of course gone now), and the various others are great stand-up comedians. They epitomize the best of all Internet trolls.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
In other words, people like to laugh, and Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann (of course gone now), and the various others are great stand-up comedians. They epitomize the best of all Internet trolls.
Exactly, and that I'm sure that has to be Fox's recipe for success as well, keeping their ratings up. They are quite Foxy with that .... Very Happy
handfleisch
liljp617 wrote:
Basically FOX is where people go when Comedy Central isn't playing anything good. And if nothing good is on FOX, they go to MSNBC. If nothing is good on MSNBC....well who knows what they do!?

In other words, people like to laugh, and Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann (of course gone now), and the various others are great stand-up comedians.

I wish what you say were true, but it's not. First of all, FOX does not present itself as a joke, unlike Comedy Central. To the contrary, they present themselves as the only objective, fair and balanced news source and the rest of the media as "liberal", unfair, unbalanced. They aren't joking at all.

About your second point, do you not live in the USA? Because I can assure you millions of people watch FOX in all seriousness, they believe what FOX news tells them to believe. I am not talking about some theoretical "other", but people I know directly who are very typical Americans in other ways. Educated people who believe there is a war on Christmas, for example, because FOX covers it as a news story every year.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
About your second point, do you not live in the USA? Because I can assure you millions of people watch FOX in all seriousness, they believe what FOX news tells them to believe. I am not talking about some theoretical "other", but people I know directly who are very typical Americans in other ways. Educated people who believe there is a war on Christmas, for example, because FOX covers it as a news story every year.
I would have thought that the News Programmes would be basically as biased or unbiased as any other TV Stations? To be a little cynical, what is the real difference with Fox news influencing people versus any other Station? Probably just a difference by degree? To be truthful, I don't have a high regard for any of the news reporting in North America, and that includes Canada. There is too much of pressure on journalists and editors to work for ratings and to work on stories that sell. What I do enjoy now and then are the magazines like Geographical Magazine and Time Magazine for example.
Related topics
News Corp to buy MySpace.com owner for $580 million
Democrats at it again: Caught in another lie
Dems: these are merely the facts
NY Times: A perfect example of lieberals spreading...
Justification for War in Iraq
CNN even knows Fox Rox!
Enemy Press
SEARCHING FOR MR. GOOD-WAR
the 9/11 truth
White House excludes "whining" Fox News from inter
Rick Sanchez.....maybe you lie too. Or don't check facts...
Bush's writer: HCR is GOP Waterloo, GOP works for FOX news
Fox News: 9/11 Commission "a whitewash"
Is Fox News Good ot Bad.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.