BrentAllen Posted July 27, 2006 Author Share Posted July 27, 2006 Z, Yes, I do consider it to be fair and balanced. The question you should is ask is balanced against what? I think they do a fair job of presenting different sides to an issue, but I also think they balance the rest of the MSM. Beaver likes to blast Hannity, but last time I checked, they have Colmes on there to present the other side. It gets a little too heated for my taste, but they do present both sides. They also have Brit Hume with his roundtable, which includes Mara Liasson from NPR, Fred Barnes from The Weekly Standard, and Mort Kondracke from Roll Call - that looks pretty balanced to me. I think Cavuto and Smith are pretty good about giving both sides of an issue as well. You see a lot of liberals on Fox - they are given a chance to present their side. Beaver - Drudge didn't beat the MSM to the Monica story - he was just the first to publish it. Newsweek had the story, but for some odd reason, they sat on it. BTW, Drudge didn't say Kerry had an affair. He said "others are reporting that Kerry had an affair..." Yes, I will give you it is sort of a dodge - sort of like Iran having Hezbollah do their dirty work for them. O'Reilly may make a few mistakes, but I'd take his record over that of the NYTimes any day. I'd be embarassed to work for that paper these days. O'Reilly isn't going to toss softballs like Larry King, so some people won't go on his show. I've seen him interview some arch-enemies, and he has treated them with respect, and he gives them the last word. So, yes, I do consider FNC balanced - certainly much more balanced than any of the other cable or network news casts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanKroh Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Beaver, I think your assessment of Fox News is spot on, as is your comparison of the differences between the news entertainment they provide and the journalism of the real news networks. And you aren't even one of those "lefties" (or should that be "us lefties"?) that have it out for Fox News! Bill O'Reilly certainly seems to be the worst offender on the misinformation without correction, retraction, or apology hit parade. Of course, let's not forget that anyone who points out his misinformation is a "smear merchant". But any publicity is good publicity when you are hawking your books, mugs, t-shirts, and "holiday ornaments", isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunt Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 I've noticed that professional wrestling is more popular than opera. Perhaps if those hefty singers would add some more body slams and eye gouges, they would expand their audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Sadly, I doubt today that the market would sustain someone like Edward R. Murrow (whose broadcasts I remember as a child). Persons of his stature are less likely to provide the viewership necessary to attract the commercial support and the profits. In the end we do this to ourselves by making our choices - kind of like electing our leaders. In the words of Father Guido Sarducci, "I blame-a myself." Edited part: Case in point: Anyone ever hear of Robert McNeil or Jim Lehrer? There it is. Hunt, some of my students become very indignant if I suggest that championship wrestling is, ahem, less than it seems. I did ask them once, though, and 100% of the wrestling afficionados prefer Fox News. I know, unscientific poll, small numbers. It's all the access I have but such fun!(This message has been edited by packsaddle) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR540Beaver Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Championship wrestling isn't real? Say it ain't so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Beav, Heavens! In the spirit of Haystack Calhoun, Mike Clancy, Brute Bernard, The Great Bolo, Rip 'the profile' Hawk, Two-ton Harris, the names just go on and on....Of course championship wrestling is real! But there are some who would perhaps mutter (carefully, under their breath) that it isn't wrestling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutingagain Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 I mentioned Jon Stewart because he admits he's an entertainer/comedian. But based on this article: http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/28/comedy.politics/index.html his viewers were better informed on the issues during the last Presidential election than regular viewers of most other comedy and entertainment "news" shows. SA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR540Beaver Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Ah yes, I remember watching Haystack warm up by breaking 2x4's with his massive belly. Remember Skandar Akbar and Danny Hodges? When I was growing up, we had championship wrestling each weekend at the Coliseum in the Stockyards in Oklahoma City. A local TV and radio personality named Danny Williams hosted it on a local TV station right after the 10 PM news on Saturday. The old codger is still around and must be in his 80's now. He gave Mary Hart of Entertainment Tonight her start in the business as his sidekick on a noon time TV show called Dannysday. His tag line at the end of the wrestling program was, "look out for flying chairs!" It seems that meyhem broke out once at a wrestling match and chairs were being tossed about. I don't think my brother or I ever missed watching wrestling. We used to tag team wrestle with the other kids in the neighborhood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunt Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 In my youth, I was watched quite a bit of wrestling on TV, and it was always clear to me that it was...well, let's just say that the action embodied some clear themes, and that there was a certain predictable flow to the events. But my friend and I attended several live pro wrestling events when they came through my town, and I was surprised to see the level of belief (at least apparent belief) among members of the audience. I remember seeing Brute Bernard, Swede Hansen, and Greg Valentine in person--many more on TV--my favorite was Dusty Rhodes. I will say that those guys were really strong, and the moves and stunts they did required a lot, and could really hurt a person. A couple of years ago I saw Ivan Koloff signing autographs in a Wal-Mart--he could barely walk. Sigh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zahnada Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Going back to the Cable News topic (my apologies to all you wrestling fans), there was an interesting communication study done. Sadly, I read the study, but can't site it offhand, so you'll have to take my word. It makes sense though. Anyway, if there was a completely unbiased, balanced news agency... it would fail. Big time. People always believe their side is right. So, if you give balanced coverage to both sides, they would feel the opposing (or "wrong") side was getting too much. They would then feel the news was slanted. It's funny because the researchers produced a completely balanced news broadcast. The Republicans thought everything slanted towards the Democrats. The Democrats thought it was slanted towards the Republicans. We must always remember that EVERY newscast has one purpose: attract viewers. High ratings = ability to charge more for advertising = higher profits. That's the system TV is based on. So, although I feel Fox News is slanted towards the Republicans, I can't fault them for that. They've chosen a very successful economic strategy, as is shown by ratings. And it's obvious that other stations are desperately trying to copy Fox's strategy of confrontational news. I think it's important to remember that the media is a business out to make a profit. Always consider that before you form opinions based on its coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR540Beaver Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Great!!! Just great! Next, someone is going to say that Santa isn't real either. I feel my world slipping away bit by bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrentAllen Posted July 27, 2006 Author Share Posted July 27, 2006 CNN tried confrontational news with Crossfire, and it didn't work. To say Fox is just winning with that style of news is a little disingenuous. To me, the format simply isn't boring. Looking at the comments here, their plan must be working extremely well. A lot of posters have a lot of bad things to say about Fox, but they are also very knowledgable about the news shows. Am I wrong to assume that knowledge was gained by tuning in to Fox? Seems to be a lot of viewers here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanKroh Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Actually, after watching Fox News once or twice, I wouldn't be caught brain-dead watching it. I get my information about their antics from websites like Media Matters, Newshounds, and Crooks and Liars, which often include video/audio clips, which I often watch just to see how badly they really are mangling the "news". You know, those "smear merchants" that actually document the way that Fox News twists the news, by presenting what was said on Fox along side the real facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutingagain Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 " Am I wrong to assume that knowledge was gained by tuning in to Fox?" Brent, didn't you read the article that indicated Daily Show watchers on Comedy Central were more informed than Fox News watchers? They were more informed than CNN watchers and regular newspaper readers as well for that matter. From the article, "On top of that, "Daily Show" viewers know more about election issues than people who regularly read newspapers or watch television news, according to the National Annenberg Election Survey. (Pop quiz) Dannagal Goldthwaite Young, a senior research analyst at the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, said "Daily Show" viewers came out on top "even when education, party identification, following politics, watching cable news, receiving campaign information online, age and gender are taken into consideration." And: ""Daily Show" viewers are 78 percent more likely than the average adult to have four or more years of college education, while O'Reilly's audience is only 24 percent more likely to have that much schooling." So keep watching Fox and we'll let you know if the Republicans lose the House and Senate in the November elections here in the Forum. SA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrentAllen Posted July 27, 2006 Author Share Posted July 27, 2006 SA, My question was concerning knowledge about FNC shows, not knowledge in general. Some posters here really despise Hannity and O'Reilly. How can they know if they really dislike them unless they watch them? Some have posted comments about the accuracy, or lack there of, in O'Reilly's shows. How would they know unless they are watching him regularly? I have tried to watch the Daily Show, and it just isn't that funny to me. Stewart's schtik is annoying and predictable. Either my Georgia Tech degree isn't what it is made out to be, or elitist liberal Ivy League'rs dominate the Daily Show audience. Regardless, I would like to see that pop quiz. So, are we ever going to catch Saddam Hussein? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now