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


Is Fox News Good ot Bad.





Possum
Hi

I live in New Zealand. I listen to Fox often. I don't know if what they say is good or bad news Journalism.

I wrote this about them on my site..

http://udopage.com/news-spin-doctor.php

But now I saw this Interview. Which is so good I cant believe it..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=donY4OuQ6yE

I knows I need to rewrite my page...

What should I say...

Do you know of any Youtube Fox videos that are either bad or good..

Thank you..
deanhills
I think you should go for your own gut feel. Maybe it's a case of hit and miss with O'Reilly and Beck, so they get one hit out of X number of shows. It could be that the Fox Programme has been designed to show them at their worst because at their worst their programmes are more controversial and will attract more advertising.
jwellsy
Bad or good compared to what? Fox gives liberals a fairer shake than mainstream stations give conservatives.
Possum
Quote:
Bad or good compared to what?


the Truth and relevance.
jwellsy
The truth? Good luck with that. There are many sides that claim to have the truth. Your own biases will guide you to your truths.
liljp617
jwellsy wrote:
Bad or good compared to what? Fox gives liberals a fairer shake than mainstream stations give conservatives.


Fox is part of the mainstream media -.-
ironrectangle
I'm not sure where I heard this, and I'll look for a link right now, but I don't think Fox News Corp is registered with the gov't (FCC?) as a "news organization" but rather "entertainment."

This makes them far less credible in my eyes, and I don't feel like I need to take them as seriously anymore.
Possum
Now that is interesting.. Hope you find the link
ironrectangle
hmmm I can't find it, and I'm starting to think it's one of those things I heard about but got misconstrued.

Seems cable networks (including FNC, CNN, etc.) don't require an FCC license because they're not over-the-air broadcast networks. Contrast this with FOX Entertainment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOX_Entertainment), which owns the OTA network and FNC (among many, many others).

I did find this webpage, which seems to construe that, even though they don't require an FCC broadcast license, they still have to follow FCC regulations: http://mediamatters.org/blog/200911200035
Navigator
jwellsy wrote:
The truth? Good luck with that. There are many sides that claim to have the truth. Your own biases will guide you to your truths.


Don't you get an itchy feeling when listening to Rush, or Glenn? I even get it from CNN and MSNBC, thats because you are listening something that is far from being the truth, I don't think there are boundaries anymore, these networks are owned by a very few corporations and all they are doing is provide an offer for each mindset out there.
Possum
Fox is both bad and Good. Who knows where they fit. Maybe they want it all..
ironrectangle
I used to work for a Congressional office (in 2009) and you'd be surprised how we could almost anticipate the calls we'd receive from constituents. The congressman was (ever so slightly) left-of-center, but he might as well have been wearing communist flag pants to work.

I never did a study, but I always wanted to. Here's my hypothesis: we could have collected volume data from constituent calls/emails/faxes and tagged the subject. This was done, to an extent, to facilitate sending the constituent a response letter from the Congressman with his position on the topic.

Here's the kicker: I suspect we could pretty well show that whatever the Fox News, Rush, etc., peeps were talking about that morning or afternoon would end up in our inbox within a few minutes. You could tell when a new hour of a conservative talk show would start without looking at the clock, simply by the uptick in call volume.

I actually had to sit and (very politely) fight with a few people on "death panels". They were convinced the Congressman was going to vote for them, effectively killing old people. I reminded them that the Congressman, and many others like him in the House and Senate, would be considered "old" or at least of an age eligible to accept social security.

It's irrational dribble, but the masses eat it up. You can't explain that.
Possum
ironrectangle:

Wow that is one of the best posts I have ever read on FriHost. You remind us all that we are still dealing with real people. And show us the Power of the Media.
ironrectangle
Yeah, I was most surprised after working there how "real" everyone was.

You almost picture going into a congressional office to have everyone working diligently on their projects, with posters on the wall delineating the various positions of the Congressman or the party and that everyone would be world class political operatives or something.

What it really was consisted of a random assortment of people, all of whom were very smart and motivated. However, each of us had our own distinct opinions about a variety of topics, many of which directly diverged from the opinions of the Congressman and/or party. No issue is ever cut-and-dry, and it's even less so when you're actually there.

That was a really tough sentiment to get across on the phone or through form responses: "we hear your concerns, constituents, but it's not as easy as you want it to be. But we're working hard for you, every day." And damn, hard and endless work it was.
Bikerman
Very refreshing.
One sometimes feels, with all the conspiracy theories, allegations of 'communism' , 'socialism' and the like, that politicians must be inhumanly clever & unbelievable devious. Most of us cannot keep a secret from our spouse, yet politicians are routinely supposed to be keeping world-shaking secrets from everyone. Else they are supposed to be hiding a deep belief in socialism (eg Obama) and trying to implement socialist policy.
BullSHIT. Politicians are you, me, the guy next door. They are as corrupt & fallible as you or I - ie not too corrupt and pretty fallible.
I have done some work for the labour party here in the UK and I recognised ironrectangle's account immediately. A politician can have a consistent, life-long history of supporting X. One headline in the news, saying they oppose X and millions of people suddenly believe the politician is against X.
Why is this? Stupidity? I think it is far to easy to take the elitist position that the majority of people are just stupid and only us clever people can see the real issues. I don't buy that for a moment.
So what is it? Education. Education will not make people brilliant, balanced, moral beings, but without it people are much LESS likely to be such. What have most bigots got in common? Lack of education.
What have most religious fundamentalists got in common? Lack of education.
What have most believers in conspiracy theories got in common?......yep....
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
BullSHIT. Politicians are you, me, the guy next door. They are as corrupt & fallible as you or I - ie not too corrupt and pretty fallible.
Now this is a real load of rubbish Bikerman. Politicians have to deal with total public exposure and be accountable for every little act while they are being scrutinized by the media to the nth degree. Although some of them would like to be like everyone else, it just is not practically feasible. So quite a large number have to adjust their behaviour to make provision for intense public scrutiny by the media, and in many cases it comes with being dishonest or lying. Alternatively people who are good with presentation skills, are excellent at being dishonest with the appearance of honesty stand a better chance for a job in politics. Those who demand a very high standard of honesty may not make the grade, or may not be interested in politics at all, unless they can justify their participation along the lines of the ends justifying the means. They are definitely not like the guy next door, although they obviously try and sell that to everyone to get votes.
ironrectangle
While I agree with you deanhills that they are held to a different standard, and there's an incredible pressure on every action, I think the problems and difficulties arise because they are just like us. I can't imagine behaving in a world where you're under such scrutiny, where any statement can be construed ten different ways, and where I'm held accountable to the statement I made yesterday as much as my previous 10 years of actions. I'm glad to not be in the public light, simply because I'm a fallible and corruptible human (the same as our elected representatives), but I'm not held to a higher standard for the repercussions of my missteps.
deanhills
ironrectangle wrote:
While I agree with you deanhills that they are held to a different standard, and there's an incredible pressure on every action, I think the problems and difficulties arise because they are just like us. I can't imagine behaving in a world where you're under such scrutiny, where any statement can be construed ten different ways, and where I'm held accountable to the statement I made yesterday as much as my previous 10 years of actions. I'm glad to not be in the public light, simply because I'm a fallible and corruptible human (the same as our elected representatives), but I'm not held to a higher standard for the repercussions of my missteps.
How can they be the same as us when they are treated differently, and have to act differently in order to get into the positions where they are treated differently than we are? I'd agree with you but more from the point of view that they undertook a position to a higher standard where we are and if they fail it is because they were unable to deliver to that higher standard, or if they lost favour with the media who seems to be very powerful in creating politicians (like they did with Mubarak in Egypt for many years when they must have known how corrupt he had been), but also killing them off.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
BullSHIT. Politicians are you, me, the guy next door. They are as corrupt & fallible as you or I - ie not too corrupt and pretty fallible.
Now this is a real load of rubbish Bikerman. Politicians have to deal with total public exposure and be accountable for every little act while they are being scrutinized by the media to the nth degree. Although some of them would like to be like everyone else, it just is not practically feasible. So quite a large number have to adjust their behaviour to make provision for intense public scrutiny by the media, and in many cases it comes with being dishonest or lying. Alternatively people who are good with presentation skills, are excellent at being dishonest with the appearance of honesty stand a better chance for a job in politics. Those who demand a very high standard of honesty may not make the grade, or may not be interested in politics at all, unless they can justify their participation along the lines of the ends justifying the means. They are definitely not like the guy next door, although they obviously try and sell that to everyone to get votes.
Piffle.
Firstly very few policians have to deal with 'total public exposure'.
How many British politicians can you name? I bet you can't name 10 without looking. There are 650 politicians in the commons alone. There are 100 government ministers and I bet the average UK citizen would struggle to name a dozen.
Secondly I didn't say they behave like me, I said they are the same, by which I mean they have the same hopes, dreams, fears, failings, weaknesses.
Thirdly very dishonest people do not generally do well in politics because they are not trusted by their colleagues and they are the ones who put you in power, not the electorate.
Fourthly they are EXACTLY like the guy next door. My neighbour is a county councillor.
ocalhoun
Is fox news good or bad?
(Like nearly all mainstream news) their journalistic standards are appallingly low, when viewed in comparison to their influence.
(Unlike most other mainstream news) they have a very heavy conservative bias.

So, I'll have to go with: bad.

...Though, if you view it through an investor's eyes, very good, since they are a very successful news company.

Mainstream news in general is pretty lousy, but Fox is one of the worst.



.......................


As for Bikerman's 'politicians are just like the rest of us'...
Have you looked at 'the rest of us' lately?
I do NOT want them in charge!
Klaw 2
I remember a while back there was an item on the dutch news that fox news had an item about the following;
They reported that in Holland parents had their just born babies killed (legaly in hospitals) because they "don't measure up to an arbitrary standard set by the hospital" of course this was "complete loose stool water, it is arse gravy of the worst kind"

Here's the tect of another forum showing the tect.
http://forum.fok.nl/topic/636906
It also was on TV however can't find the clip, i guess it was before youtube became popular.

Anyway the Netherlands suffers more attacks from those idiot's, I bet they have never even been here...
They don't like us because smoking pot and prostitition is legal here, we have gay marriages and we are quite secular.
Bikerman
Klaw 2 wrote:
of course this was "complete loose stool water, it is arse gravy of the worst kind"
I recognise that phrase Smile
It was coined, I believe, by Stephen Fry when describing Dan Brown's Davinci Code....
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
...Though, if you view it through an investor's eyes, very good, since they are a very successful news company.
But how many news companies are there in the US that really have high standards? It would seem in order to have a successful news company in the US news has to be slanted in a way that creates sensation and is delivered ahead of verification as the one wants to outdo the other with speed in delivering the same news. End result is when a news story breaks, there are several conflicting reports as to the stats involved, particularly with regard to statistics of how many people had died.
Klaw 2
Bikerman wrote:
Klaw 2 wrote:
of course this was "complete loose stool water, it is arse gravy of the worst kind"
I recognise that phrase Smile
It was coined, I believe, by Stephen Fry when describing Dan Brown's Davinci Code....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0H7dKb7HvE
achowles
I cannot believe that anyone, anyone at all could possibly take Fox News seriously. When Fox News got sued for blatantly lying (as usual) they simply claimed that Fox News was for entertainment purposes only.

They won.

Thus cementing it as fact that Fox News is good only for when you need to laugh at far right fundamentalists who put the mentalist in fundamentalist.

It's a joke. They argued in court that their own programming is such a joke it wasn't worth the court's time and they won.

Which just goes to prove that anyone who takes Fox News seriously and agrees with its stance simply has a political and religious outlook on life that is far to ludicrous for any media source that's grounded in reality to adequately sate the needs of.
Ankhanu
Fox is a hilarious joke, with sadly real influence. Yes, they are bad... I'm tempted to say they're no worse than the other mainstream news sources, but, well, they are Razz
Take anything from Fox with a grain of salt and do your own research. This also applied to other news sources, but doubly so for Fox.


Also, Bikerman is certainly right about politicians being just like the rest of us... they are freakin' people, after all. No matter what class, race, job or what have you, ultimately people are basically the same. I know politicians at the local and provincial level. I've met federal level politicians. Obviously, their levels of skill vary, as do their personalities, but, in the end, they're someone's neighbour, they live in a neighbourhood, they've been coworkers... they ARE you.
Yes, that is scary Razz
achowles
Ankhanu wrote:
Fox is a hilarious joke, with sadly real influence. Yes, they are bad... I'm tempted to say they're no worse than the other mainstream news sources, but, well, they are Razz
Yes, that is scary Razz


I just don't understand why the lawsuit didn't result in them being forced to drop the 'News' part of their name. A lot of money must have changed hands under a table that day. The result is a bad joke that whatever passes for trading standards in the US has let people take seriously.
Ankhanu
They're providing news... they're just not providing credible journalism. That they have "news" in their name isn't really an issue, imo. Should the Onion News Network remove news from their name? They're clearly a joke site... Fox is clearly a joke site... there's no problem.

Josso
Fox is like propaganda HQ. Can't get truth from any of them though, as for the most reliable the least biased is probably RT. Never trust any though, do your own research people.
Related topics
News Corp to buy MySpace.com owner for $580 million
Grea8 news for Bill Gates!!!
Dems: these are merely the facts
CNN even knows Fox Rox!
SEARCHING FOR MR. GOOD-WAR
Triple suicide at Guantanamo Bay
HUGE amounts of WMDs found-500
these are our children...
Montreal College Shoot out
White House excludes "whining" Fox News from inter
Bush's writer: HCR is GOP Waterloo, GOP works for FOX news
Help NPR beat FOX
Fox News: 9/11 Commission "a whitewash"
Communist Muppets - Fox is hilarious.
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.