Stewart: MSNBC is the new Fox News

[xshady121]

http://blog.indecision2008.com/2008/12/02/the-daily-show-msnbc-is-the-new-fox-news/#comments

Discuss.

[saysmydoctor]

Sean Collins: No shit.

[open mind]

i don't think msnbc will take things to the ridiculous level of idiocy that fox did with bush.

[Machu505]

Chris Matthews is still the shit.

[modlife]

Pew Research Center has MSNBC more biased than Fox.

[open mind]

Pew Research Center has MSNBC more biased than Fox.

interesting....got a link?

[WarpSpeedChewy]

It's kinda of true, but I don't think MSNBC will just put out bluntly false information out there, the way FOX has.

[saysmydoctor]

This just in: water still wet.

However, when your former Vice President is sending out memos saying anchors should focus on how judicial nominees would rule concerning abortion, there is a little more than just bias there.

I actually wrote an essay to say that media bias isn't bias so much as it is pandering.

[WarpSpeedChewy]

This just in: water still wet.

However, when your former Vice President is sending out memos saying anchors should focus on how judicial nominees would rule concerning abortion, there is a little more than just bias there.

I actually wrote an essay to say that media bias isn't bias so much as it is pandering.
Can you elaborate on that for me ?

[J.C.]

MSNBC is very slanted, though I think they keep it out of their news division better than Fox does. Most of MSNBC's bias comes from their talking heads, while Fox let's it infiltrate how they present the news.

[xshady121]

I actually wrote an essay to say that media bias isn't bias so much as it is pandering.

:rotfl:

[J.C.]

I don't see anything laughable about that, particularly at the corporate media level. A lot of their agenda is driven by their ability to profit.

[ambulance]

Pew Research Center has MSNBC more biased than Fox.

I don't understand why this even matters. What constitutes 'more biased?' anyways? If there are facts that prove one side is right over the other, I don't want the reports to be watered down, just so these media facets are 'unbiased.' I want REAL NEWS, not this 'every side has a valid point' bullshit.

Also, from Media Politics, by Iyengar and McGrady, "More rather than less partisan press will have the effect of increasing the supply of issue-oriented news." Something I think we need more of.

It's kinda of true, but I don't think MSNBC will just put out bluntly false information out there, the way FOX has.

Exactly. Out of all the lies and nonsense Fox News has spout out over the past 8 years, practically becoming the WH's own press secretary, there is a clear difference between Fox and MSNBC. I highly doubt MSNBC, especially Olbermann, will become some mouthpiece for the Obama Presidency if he makes huge mistakes like Bush has done. Just look what he did to Hillary during the primaries.

[TK]

I don't see how someone could disagree...

[saysmydoctor]

Can you elaborate on that for me ?
http://wonkette.com/17613/fox-news-memos-the-whole-batch
MSNBC is very slanted, though I think they keep it out of their news division better than Fox does. Most of MSNBC's bias comes from their talking heads, while Fox let's it infiltrate how they present the news.
Exactly.
:rotfl:
Oh--you have a better insight?

[x togepi x]

I really am beginning to hate John Stewart.

[xshady121]

I don't understand why this even matters. What constitutes 'more biased?' anyways? If there are facts that prove one side is right over the other, I don't want the reports to be watered down, just so these media facets are 'unbiased.' I want REAL NEWS, not this 'every side has a valid point' bullshit.

Also, from Media Politics, by Iyengar and McGrady, "More rather than less partisan press will have the effect of increasing the supply of issue-oriented news." Something I think we need more of.



Exactly. Out of all the lies and nonsense Fox News has spout out over the past 8 years, practically becoming the WH's own press secretary, there is a clear difference between Fox and MSNBC. I highly doubt MSNBC, especially Olbermann, will become some mouthpiece for the Obama Presidency if he makes huge mistakes like Bush has done. Just look what he did to Hillary during the primaries.


You apparently haven't heard Chris Matthews' quote (http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=214673).

I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work. That's my job.

edit: also , do you have a page number for that media politics quote?

[xshady121]

I really am beginning to hate John Stewart.

Yeah, hate everyone who points out the facts. You're half way to becoming a true republican!

[ambulance]

You apparently haven't heard Chris Matthews' quote (http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=214673).



edit: also , do you have a page number for that media politics quote?

page 307.

So you are trying to predict the future by using a quote that ONE reporter said? He said he wanted to make the presidency work because 'my job is to help this country.' If he believes Obama's policies are the best and they ARE working, I have no problem with what he will be doing. It's when there are clear problems and facts that disprove that a presidents strategy is working, yet the media just looks over this and continues to support a president's policy that bothers me. This is what Fox news does.

[saysmydoctor]

Considering the media is a de facto fourth branch of this country, Chris Matthews pretty much outlined his own job description.

[J.C.]

Chris Matthews isn't a reporter, he's a commentator. It's his job to give his opinions. That's the point of his show.

If you want the news, you watch Brian Williams.

[ambulance]

Chris Matthews isn't a reporter, he's a commentator. It's his job to give his opinions. That's the point of his show.

If you want the news, you watch Brian Williams.

You're missing the point, but ok.

[Machu505]

Matthews really should run for Senate in Pennsylvania in 2010.

[saysmydoctor]

Chris Matthews isn't a reporter, he's a commentator. It's his job to give his opinions. That's the point of his show.

If you want the news, you watch Brian Williams.
Exactly, he is an oped commentator.

[ambulance]

If a commentators opinions have nothing to stand on then they shouldn't be on air. That is the point of this discussion. Just because you're a commentator doesn't mean you shouldn't have any accountability.

[Jason Tate]

You're missing the point, but ok.
It appears you're missing the point and important distinction.

[x togepi x]

Yeah, hate everyone who points out the facts. You're half way to becoming a true republican!

way to miss the point you fucking idiot. of course, reagan avatar, of course you're dumb as fuck.

[J.C.]

If a commentators opinions have nothing to stand on then they shouldn't be on air. That is the point of this discussion. Just because you're a commentator doesn't mean you shouldn't have any accountability.

I don't know anyone else in here's who's talking about substance. The thread was about news bias. Matthews is clearly biased, but his job isn't to present the news, it's to comment on it.

[Jason Tate]

If a commentators opinions have nothing to stand on then they shouldn't be on air. That is the point of this discussion. Just because you're a commentator doesn't mean you shouldn't have any accountability.
Commentary and news bias are two very different things.

[Tony Pascarella]

What Pew Research study was one of the posters in this thread referring to?

This was all I could find that seemed relevant:
How Different Media Have Covered the Election (http://www.journalism.org/node/13436)

MSNBC had less negative Obama coverage than the press overall, Fox News had more negative Obama coverage and more positive McCain coverage. They show CNN being more in the middle.

I found this interesting:

"The distinct tone of MSNBC—more positive toward Democrats and more negative toward Republicans—was not reflected in the coverage of its broadcast sibling, NBC News. Even though it has correspondents appear on their cable shows and even anchor some programs on there, the broadcast channel showed no such ideological tilt. Indeed, NBC’s coverage of Palin was the most positive of any TV organization studied, including Fox News."

I do love reading some of the research that Pew Research/PEJ do. I've used them several times as sources for research papers. Really interesting stuff.

[saysmydoctor]

I don't know anyone else in here's who's talking about substance. The thread was about news bias. Matthews is clearly biased, but his job isn't to present the news, it's to comment on it.
This.

[ambulance]

Commentary and news bias are two very different things.

That's why we are talking about MEDIA BIAS between two channels not news bias.

[ambulance]

I don't know anyone else in here's who's talking about substance. The thread was about news bias. Matthews is clearly biased, but his job isn't to present the news, it's to comment on it.

Did you even watch the Stewart video? It wasn't comparing Fox's NEWS coverage to MSNBC's. He compared the 'commentators' too.

[J.C.]

Did you even watch the Stewart video? It wasn't comparing Fox's NEWS coverage to MSNBC's. He compared the 'commentators' too.

I know, I watched The Daily Show last night.

I know you were responding to something Shady had said. All I pointed out was that Matthews is not reflective of how NBC presents their news. He's reflective of the political-slant you'll find in MSNBC's commentatary shows.

Fox is brutally biased with their commentators, but it's the fact that the bias gets represented in their news presentation that gets them in trouble. Do you remember the terrorist fistjab debacle? Or Fox News running with the story that Obama went to school at a Madrassa in Indonesia? Those were presented as pieces of news.

Fox does have a few good guys over there though, to be fair. I like Chris Wallace and Shep Smith.

[saysmydoctor]

Fox & Friends = prime example.

Also, the anchor woman who got into an argument with Obama spokesperson who called out Fox.

[Jason Tate]

That's why we are talking about MEDIA BIAS between two channels not news bias.
Media bias is irrelevant - media inherently holds bias as it contains editorial. News should be objective (albeit sensationalistic).

[theguilt engine]

Bias news isn't news at all.

[xshady121]

way to miss the point you fucking idiot. of course, reagan avatar, of course you're dumb as fuck.

What, the point that you hate Stewart for calling out MSNBC? Sounds like someone is angry when the facts don't agree with their personal beliefs.

[ambulance]

Media bias is irrelevant - media inherently holds bias as it contains editorial. News should be objective (albeit sensationalistic).

What the hell are you talking about? Did you just miss my whole point?
1. I never said news shouldn't be objective
2. Again, we are talking about Fox News and MSNBC, AS A WHOLE, not just the news coverage.
3. How is media bias irrelevant? If you are catering to one side, even if it is 'just your opinion' there is a large chance you are leaving out facts and issues that should be raised. You are leading a horse to water, and that is not fair to the viewer. If you are going to have an opinion, I want facts to back your opinion up.

[Jason Tate]

What the hell are you talking about? Did you just miss my whole point?
1. I never said news shouldn't be objective
2. Again, we are talking about Fox News and MSNBC, AS A WHOLE, not just the news coverage.
3. How is media bias irrelevant? If you are catering to one side, even if it is 'just your opinion' there is a large chance you are leaving out facts and issues that should be raised. You are leading a horse to water, and that is not fair to the viewer. If you are going to have an opinion, I want facts to back your opinion up.
I wasn't saying you said 1, I was making a statement about the difference between media and news. When discussing 2, we are talking about the differences between media and news - they are not the same nor should the be treated the same. That is why we are discussing the difference between commentators and reporters. And 3 is becoming ridiculous that you can't tell the difference. Omissions are fine in media - someone writing a persuasive paper isn't required to present all sides in an objective matter. This is the same about commentators and pundits -- they are editorial opinions - there is no assumption of objectivity. The problem is when the line becomes blurred or is misrepresented -- which is what we are discussing here. The point is claiming "media bias" is irrelevant because "media" is a very, very wide umbrella that is expected to include bias. News is not. The distinction is extremely important.

[x togepi x]

What, the point that you hate Stewart for calling out MSNBC? Sounds like someone is angry when the facts don't agree with their personal beliefs.

Actually, I hardly ever watch MSNBC, nor do I doubt that they're becoming shills for Obama (he is, after all, a fairly corporate president-elect and cozying up to him fills a niche in the news cycle as I'm sure fox will still remain super critical of him). The reason I am beginning to hate Jon Stewart comes from his smug "we should all be moderates because that will fix all our problems. extremism is bad" stance. it seems that he doesn't realize that "moderates"/"the center" are just as extremist as anyone else in this adversarial system.

and being queer and seeing the moderate stance on gay rights which is "let the states decide" really shows how fucking ridiculous that mentality is. oh cool, i'll just sit here and get shit on for my sexual identity just because it's not moderate enough.

also, as i've gotten older i've come to realize that he often tries to hide behind the "well i just do a comedy program" comment whenever he gets challenged on certain views (like the "well, you're a hypocrite for blah blah blah ones), which i don't think is very legit considering he is making political statements just as much as bill o'rielly or keith olbermann.

[_jonas]

Of course some conservative buffoon such as xshady would be petrified of MSNBC.

To be honest, I prefer liberal bias if any. And MSNBC has some dignity at least.
I doubt they'd keep anyone as hated or mean spirited as O'Reilly just because he brings the viewer ship.

[saysmydoctor]

Actually, I hardly ever watch MSNBC, nor do I doubt that they're becoming shills for Obama (he is, after all, a fairly corporate president-elect and cozying up to him fills a niche in the news cycle as I'm sure fox will still remain super critical of him). The reason I am beginning to hate Jon Stewart comes from his smug "we should all be moderates because that will fix all our problems. extremism is bad" stance. it seems that he doesn't realize that "moderates"/"the center" are just as extremist as anyone else in this adversarial system.

and being queer and seeing the moderate stance on gay rights which is "let the states decide" really shows how fucking ridiculous that mentality is. oh cool, i'll just sit here and get shit on for my sexual identity just because it's not moderate enough.

also, as i've gotten older i've come to realize that he often tries to hide behind the "well i just do a comedy program" comment whenever he gets challenged on certain views (like the "well, you're a hypocrite for blah blah blah ones), which i don't think is very legit considering he is making political statements just as much as bill o'rielly or keith olbermann.
I agree with everything except the bolded. The difference between his political statements and those of Olbermann and O'Reilly, is that he is a comedian and they are on Fox News and MSNBC. They are network TV. He has a half-hour segment where he critiques media literacy and makes jokes--like calling terrorists 'motherfuckers.' Then again, what he is doing is a very sociologically universal characteristic. Humor is meant to be a backtrack.

I still think him owning Crossfire or whatever, was the best thing to ever happen to television. Fucking Tucker.

[xshady121]

Of course some conservative buffoon such as xshady would be petrified of MSNBC.
You're reading comprehension skills must be severely lacking. I don't think I ever said I was "petrified" of MSNBC. Nice try though.

To be honest, I prefer liberal bias if any.
Yeah, it's been proven time and time again. Liberals prefer liberal bias, conservatives prefer conservative bias. No surprise here.

And MSNBC has some dignity at least.
I doubt they'd keep anyone as hated or mean spirited as O'Reilly just because he brings the viewer ship.

Hah. Keith Olberman.

[boykosaurus]

I don't understand how this thread got so heated.

[xshady121]

I don't know anyone else in here's who's talking about substance. The thread was about news bias. Matthews is clearly biased, but his job isn't to present the news, it's to comment on it.

No, the thread was about the overall bias of the individual organization (MSNBC or Fox News). Not just the news bias.

[_jonas]

You're reading comprehension skills must be severely lacking. I don't think I ever said I was "petrified" of MSNBC. Nice try though.

As if you'd really admit you were. It doesn't take much to comprehend somebody like you.

[xshady121]

As if you'd really admit you were. It doesn't take much to comprehend somebody like you.

Your posts have done nothing but contradict yourself. Thanks, I needed this laugh today.

[J.C.]

No, the thread was about the overall bias of the individual organization (MSNBC or Fox News). Not just the news bias.

What example of bias in NBC's news presentation would you like to point to? Give me examples.

[_jonas]

Looking for an excuse to use new vocab words?

Hint:go look over the definition for contradict again...uh oh. Well you made an oopsies there didn't you?
I never contradict myself.

[xshady121]

What example of bias in NBC's news presentation would you like to point to? Give me examples.

I never claimed to argue on the alleged-bias of the news. The initial topic was the organization as a whole (commentators and editorials included).

[J.C.]

So the point of this thread was what exactly? That MSNBC has liberal talking heads?

this.

is.

HUUUUUUUUUGE.

[/doocy]

[xshady121]

Looking for an excuse to use new vocab words?

Hint:go look over the definition for contradict again...uh oh. Well you made an oopsies there didn't you?
I never contradict myself.

You said that I am "petrified" of MSNBC and that it "doesn't take much to understand someone like me". You also said that "you prefer a liberal bias".

By labeling me as a "Sean Hannity Conservative" (which you implied by saying it doesn't take much to understand someone like me), you're saying I follow the right wing agenda so blindly that I'm petrified of MSNBC. That I'm buying into this bias. However, you yourself say that your for pro-liberal bias.

You can't be calling me out for subscribing to the right when you admit yourself you surround yourself by pro-left opinions. That position is both contradictory and hypocritical.

[xshady121]

So the point of this thread was what exactly?

To point out that MSNBC is nothing more than a left wing Fox News.

[J.C.]

To point out that MSNBC is nothing more than a left wing Fox News.

No, because NBC doesn't let the bias from their commentary infiltrate their news division like Fox does. I'm pretty sure that was like my first post in this thread.

[xshady121]

No, because NBC doesn't let the bias from their commentary infiltrate their news division like Fox does. I'm pretty sure that was like my first post in this thread.

This is an alarming study (http://www.journalism.org/node/13436) .

[_jonas]

You can't blame Obama for McCain's idiotic decisions during his campaign. Sure they could've gone after Obama like Fox did.

But what Fox did when bashing Obama was give him more distasteful than any bias MSNBC might have shown.
Palin's views of Obama were completely disgusting, yet Fox finds no harm in letting it be shrugged off.

[J.C.]

This is an alarming study (http://www.journalism.org/node/13436) .

You should probably read your own link:

"The distinct tone of MSNBC—more positive toward Democrats and more negative toward Republicans—was not reflected in the coverage of its broadcast sibling, NBC News. Even though it has correspondents appear on their cable shows and even anchor some programs on there, the broadcast channel showed no such ideological tilt. Indeed, NBC’s coverage of Palin was the most positive of any TV organization studied, including Fox News."

We don't even need to delve into the fact that McCain was basically asking for more negative coverage. His campaign friggin' announced it to the media that they were going to go negative against Obama, he inexplicably suspended his campaign(not really), vowed to not show up at the first debate before showing up anyway, and plucked Palin out of obscurity hoping that no one would check her background or mind if she didn't do any interviews.

And that's ignoring all the gaffes and in-fighting in McCain's campaign. You had McCain saying the fundamentals of the economy were strong, you had Phil Gramm calling everyone whiners, and you had McCain aides calling Palin a hillbilly diva.

God, I miss the campaign.

[Adeniz19]

You should probably read your own link:

"The distinct tone of MSNBC—more positive toward Democrats and more negative toward Republicans—was not reflected in the coverage of its broadcast sibling, NBC News. Even though it has correspondents appear on their cable shows and even anchor some programs on there, the broadcast channel showed no such ideological tilt. Indeed, NBC’s coverage of Palin was the most positive of any TV organization studied, including Fox News."
He was talking about MSNBC, not NBC. You made the discussion become about NBC.

[xshady121]

You should probably read your own link:

"The distinct tone of MSNBC—more positive toward Democrats and more negative toward Republicans—was not reflected in the coverage of its broadcast sibling, NBC News. Even though it has correspondents appear on their cable shows and even anchor some programs on there, the broadcast channel showed no such ideological tilt. Indeed, NBC’s coverage of Palin was the most positive of any TV organization studied, including Fox News."

We don't even need to delve into the fact that McCain was basically asking for more negative coverage. His campaign friggin' announced it to the media that they were going to go negative against Obama, he inexplicably suspended his campaign(not really), vowed to not show up at the first debate before showing up anyway, and plucked Palin out of obscurity hoping that no one would check her background or mind if she didn't do any interviews.

And that's ignoring all the gaffes and in-fighting in McCain's campaign. You had McCain saying the fundamentals of the economy were strong, you had Phil Gramm calling everyone whiners, and you had McCain aides calling Palin a hillbilly diva.

God, I miss the campaign.

And you should probably read the title of the thread first. There is a difference between MSNBC and NBC News. Nice try.

He was talking about MSNBC, not NBC. You made the discussion become about NBC.

This. Thank you.

[x togepi x]

I agree with everything except the bolded. The difference between his political statements and those of Olbermann and O'Reilly, is that he is a comedian and they are on Fox News and MSNBC. They are network TV. He has a half-hour segment where he critiques media literacy and makes jokes--like calling terrorists 'motherfuckers.' Then again, what he is doing is a very sociologically universal characteristic. Humor is meant to be a backtrack.

I still think him owning Crossfire or whatever, was the best thing to ever happen to television. Fucking Tucker.

Do you not think he means to be taken seriously though? I think at the point when you're making a political statement, whether it's funny, completely serious or whatever, you can't just back away and say "well my show is a joke show so.." every time he gets called out on supposed hypocrisy. if you expect to be taken seriously, you can't really back down when people begin taking you seriously. I definitely think he expects to be taken seriously having watched a ton of the interviews he does on the show, which aren't "haha look at me, i'm funny". The show has an obvious agenda, just like any other political show, it just uses a different way of talking about the issues.

i do think it's funny he didn't have anything bad to say about rachel maddow, her being probably the most liberal person on the network and all.

[saysmydoctor]

Do you not think he means to be taken seriously though? I think at the point when you're making a political statement, whether it's funny, completely serious or whatever, you can't just back away and say "well my show is a joke show so.." every time he gets called out on supposed hypocrisy. if you expect to be taken seriously, you can't really back down when people begin taking you seriously. I definitely think he expects to be taken seriously having watched a ton of the interviews he does on the show, which aren't "haha look at me, i'm funny". The show has an obvious agenda, just like any other political show, it just uses a different way of talking about the issues.

i do think it's funny he didn't have anything bad to say about rachel maddow, her being probably the most liberal person on the network and all.
I don't take him seriously, though. I realize that his agenda is to satire the media. I think some people misconstrue his agenda.

[x togepi x]

and lol people whining about bias. corporate news is most likely always going to carry some sort of bias, though it is telling that people aren't complaining about the pro-american, pro-western bias. is that not the same as liberals thinking MSNBC rules and conservatives loving fox news?

[J.C.]

He was talking about MSNBC, not NBC. You made the discussion become about NBC.

I've been talking about the whole news division. He brought up Matthews at the beginning of the thread, suggesting he doesn't understand the difference between news and commentary.

I then asked him what examples of bias from NBC's news division(whether they happened on NBC or MSNBC) that he would like to point to and he couldn't give me anything except a link to a study that suggested Fox was more fair to Obama than they were to McCain.

I don't know what to make of his argument when his proof that MSNBC was more favorable to Obama is a study that says Fox News was more favorable to Obama.

[saysmydoctor]

and lol people whining about bias. corporate news is most likely always going to carry some sort of bias, though it is telling that people aren't complaining about the pro-american, pro-western bias. is that not the same as liberals thinking MSNBC rules and conservatives loving fox news?
Bias is unavoidable, it's the corporate interference that goes about it by viewer pandering that's the real problem. We've become the pawns of six major media conglomerates.

[x togepi x]

I don't take him seriously, though. I realize that his agenda is to satire the media. I think some people misconstrue his agenda.

I don't think that's true at all. If all he did was interview musicians and actors at the end of his show, or joked around with politicians instead of asking them serious questions, then I'd agree with you, but he doesn't.

besides, satire is making a serious statement about something. it's just a different way of speaking instead of being like THE MEDIA SUCKS AND HERE'S A LONG LIST WHY. A good example of this is the movie Network (which everyone should see, made in the 70s and totally predicted the rise of fox news, etc). It was an obvious satire, yet the screenwriter went on television shows and defended some of his positions as if he had written a nonfiction book.

[x togepi x]

Bias is unavoidable, it's the corporate interference that goes about it by viewer pandering that's the real problem. We've become the pawns of six major media conglomerates.

sure, i'm just saying the people here arguing FOX vs MSNBC are missing the obvious elephant in the room.

[saysmydoctor]

I don't think that's true at all. If all he did was interview musicians and actors at the end of his show, or joked around with politicians instead of asking them serious questions, then I'd agree with you, but he doesn't.

besides, satire is making a serious statement about something. it's just a different way of speaking instead of being like THE MEDIA SUCKS AND HERE'S A LONG LIST WHY. A good example of this is the movie Network (which everyone should see, made in the 70s and totally predicted the rise of fox news, etc). It was an obvious satire, yet the screenwriter went on television shows and defended some of his positions as if he had written a nonfiction book.
I'll have to watch that.

[xshady121]

I've been talking about the whole news division. He brought up Matthews at the beginning of the thread, suggesting he doesn't understand the difference between news and commentary.

I then asked him what examples of bias from NBC's news division(whether they happened on NBC or MSNBC) that he would like to point to and he couldn't give me anything except a link to a study that suggested Fox was more fair to Obama than they were to McCain.

I don't know what to make of his argument when his proof that MSNBC was more favorable to Obama is a study that says Fox News was more favorable to Obama.

Once again, for the third time. I never attempted to argue the alleged-bias in the news division. In response to the above bolded portion, I did bring that up, but only in response to


. I highly doubt MSNBC, especially Olbermann, will become some mouthpiece for the Obama Presidency

The fact that you seem to be questioning my understanding of commentary v. news, when you yourself presented a commentator as an example, is quite mind boggling.

And NBC's news division is different than MSNBC. The article I posted argued NBCs nightly news and that stuff, not anything on MSNBC.

[saysmydoctor]

sure, i'm just saying the people here arguing FOX vs MSNBC are missing the obvious elephant in the room.
I just finished an essay on media conglomerates and viewer pandering and used both of these channels.

It's not about the news anymore, it's about profits. People don't get it.

[x togepi x]

I'll have to watch that.

it's a great film. it has a lot of really awesome monologues and a hilarious scene where a marxist influenced black panther is arguing with a network executive about how many points they will get from their new show.

[Adeniz19]

I don't see why people have a problem with what Stewart said. It's true. A lot of MSNBC's talking heads are similar to FOX's just with an entirely opposite political view. And I think it's safe to say both stations will do a 180 with their criticisms of Obama as opposed to Bush.

[J.C.]

Once again, for the third time. I never attempted to argue the alleged-bias in the news division..

You've equated Fox News and MSNBC(which is fine if we're talking about commentary), but one of the early points made in this thread was that they differed because Fox does a poor job keeping bias from infiltrating how they present the news. I mentioned a couple of examples and that was seemingly where the discussion was headed.

[J.C.]

I don't see why people have a problem with what Stewart said. It's true. A lot of MSNBC's talking heads are similar to FOX's just with an entirely opposite political view.

I don't think many, if any, disagree with that, which is why the discussion in this thread had evolved to aspects of the networks besides the talking heads.

[Adeniz19]

But, NBC is a totally different network from MSNBC, so I don't see the relevance of bringing it into this discussion when xshady said " To point out that MSNBC is nothing more than a left wing Fox News."

It seems as if you guys are having 2 totally different conversations.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Studies have consistently shown (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/16/daily-show-fox-knowledge/) Fox viewers to be among the most misinformed Americans. A 2008 Pew study ranked Fox News dead last (http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1356) in the number of “high knowledge” viewers, with only 19 percent of Fox viewers able to correctly identify the majority party in Congress (Democrats), the name of the U.S. Secretary of State (Condoleezza Rice), and name of British Prime Minister (Gordon Brown).
Fox viewers are particularly misinformed about the Iraq war. A 2003 study (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EJ04Ak01.html) found three common misperceptions about the war held by many Americans: first, that US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and al-Qaeda; second, that troops found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; and third, that world public opinion favored Washington’s going to war with Iraq. Fox viewers were the most likely to believe (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EJ04Ak01.html) these falsehoods:
Eighty percent of Fox viewers were found to hold at least one misperception, compared to 23 percent of NPR/PBS consumers. All the other media fell in between. … As to the number of misconceptions held by their audiences, Fox far outscored all of its rivals. A whopping 45 percent of its viewers believed all three misperceptions, while the other commercial networks scored between 12 percent and 16 percent. Only nine percent of [print media] readers believed all three, while only four percent of the NPR/PBS audience did.

[ambulance]

Once again, for the third time. I never attempted to argue the alleged-bias in the news division. In response to the above bolded portion, I did bring that up, but only in response to



The fact that you seem to be questioning my understanding of commentary v. news, when you yourself presented a commentator as an example, is quite mind boggling.


No, the thread was about the overall bias of the individual organization (MSNBC or Fox News). Not just the news bias.

What? I think news division is included in 'overall bias' don't you?

It seems like you are missing the point of the thread. The video you posted compared FOX's commentators to MSNBC's. It had nothing to do with overall bias or news bias, strictly the commentators. So I responded with a commentator because...that's what we're talking about. And where did I question your understanding of commentary v. news, anyways? Don't know where you got that from.

Studies have consistently shown (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/16/daily-show-fox-knowledge/) Fox viewers to be among the most misinformed Americans. A 2008 Pew study ranked Fox News dead last (http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1356) in the number of “high knowledge” viewers, with only 19 percent of Fox viewers able to correctly identify the majority party in Congress (Democrats), the name of the U.S. Secretary of State (Condoleezza Rice), and name of British Prime Minister (Gordon Brown).
Fox viewers are particularly misinformed about the Iraq war. A 2003 study (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EJ04Ak01.html) found three common misperceptions about the war held by many Americans: first, that US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and al-Qaeda; second, that troops found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; and third, that world public opinion favored Washington’s going to war with Iraq. Fox viewers were the most likely to believe (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EJ04Ak01.html) these falsehoods:Eighty percent of Fox viewers were found to hold at least one misperception, compared to 23 percent of NPR/PBS consumers. All the other media fell in between. … As to the number of misconceptions held by their audiences, Fox far outscored all of its rivals. A whopping 45 percent of its viewers believed all three misperceptions, while the other commercial networks scored between 12 percent and 16 percent. Only nine percent of [print media] readers believed all three, while only four percent of the NPR/PBS audience did.


We just went over this in my Political Communication class the other day. If we are talking about news, then FOX has failed to keep the public informed. Like I said earlier, they were merely the mouthpeice for the Bush Administration, especially on the Iraq War. But, its hard to pinpoint whether or not the misconceptions derived from FOX, but I'd say even if they didn't they did a poor job at correcting those misconceptions. Either way FOX failed to do its job here.

[xshady121]

] And where did I question your understanding of commentary v. news, anyways? Don't know where you got that from.


You didn't. It was J.C. I believe he was the one I quoted in that post.

[ambulance]

You didn't. It was J.C. I believe he was the one I quoted in that post.

Nah, that was me you quoted. I said that on the first page.

[xshady121]

Nah, that was me you quoted. I said that on the first page.

You are correct. That's my mistake.

He called me out on it, so I thought he was the one who originally made the point.