do political banner ads matter to you?

[moosetracker]

I agree, which is why I will watch Meet the Press and Morning Joe, (also MSNBC), but the Republicans guest on the show can make me cringe.. Meet the Press will have one on one interviews with Republicans as well as Democrats, and their mixed panel will give you a good perspective of both sides.. Morning Joe, normally has a good mixed panel, but some days it can lean more Democrat or lean more Republican.. They had about 3 days straight of only Republicans, and I was about to give up on the show, then they started to mix the panel up again.. You can only yell at your screen so much when something is said you disagree with because you know the other side of the story already, but there is no one on the panel to challenge it..

 

If those two being my anchor are not good enough. I also get the state newspaper I read is slanted Republican though, so that is my FOX equal.. For example, after the Libya attack the paper wrote an article saying Obama's speech in the Rose Garden was awful and why.. (I saw nothing wrong with it..) But, they never said a peep about Romney totally idotic statements the night of the attack, before all the information was in..

 

You asked,if FOX's new is accurate.. Answer is "NO", maybe not because they are telling out & out lies (we are still talking straight news here, not the ones who give commenteries, because there you do have lies).. But, is some respects omittence of information they don't want to tell you is just as bad as a lie. Same if you are sticking with only conservative information news sources on the internet.. I know I can not take a conservative news media, I assume you would be the same tuning into a liberal news media like MSNBC after being feed a diet of FOX.. All I am suggesting is if you TRUELY want to have the full story on a subject, you have to go someplace that will put a mixed panel together to discuss the subject. Then you can root for your conservatives when they swing a verbal punch, BUT, you will have HEARD the other side of the argument.

 

[scoutingagain]

It's not so much that Fox out and out lies,it is the way they present a mix of news and analysis that its not easy to tell when they are reporting fact versus opinion. Its also the mix of stories they choose to cover. There have been times they've reported complete misinformation, as have other news outlets. Fox just seems to do it a little more often and its always news/information thats pro-Republican/Conservative. For yuks try searching on Fox News on Factcheck.org. Do the same for the other networks.

 

BTW, MSNBC is at least as bad a Fox when it comes to objective reporting.

 

SA

 

 

[scoutingagain]

It's not so much that Fox out and out lies,it is the way they present a mix of news and analysis that its not easy to tell when they are reporting fact versus opinion. Its also the mix of stories they choose to cover. There have been times they've reported complete misinformation, as have other news outlets. Fox just seems to do it a little more often and its always news/information thats pro-Republican/Conservative. For yuks try searching on Fox News on Factcheck.org. Do the same for the other networks.

 

BTW, MSNBC is at least as bad a Fox when it comes to objective reporting.

 

SA

 

 

[Kahuna]

"Then you can root for your conservatives when they swing a verbal punch, BUT, you will have HEARD the other side of the argument"

 

I can and I do, but what we were discussing was the value of the news as given by Fox or any other network. As I said above, all news media has a point of view, because they are people. The best we can hope for is a fair, full presentation of facts in hard news programs.

 

I also mentioned that it is necessary to go to other places to get a full spectrum of news. It's just been my experience that, after watching Fox for most of my hard news, I seldom find any in another source that I didn't hear from Fox.

 

Everything said on this subject pretty much confirms my thinking in the beginning. Dislike of Fox is based simply on political perspective, as is my admitted dislike of MSNBC. However, MSNBC has given out information that is provably false. MSNBC edited the tapes of George Zimmerman's 911 call in such a way that it appeared he was after Martin because he was black. The full transcript showed he was answering a direct question when he first said anything about race. They later changed the story, but never admitted their bias. That was covered as hard news.

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one has pointed out factual errors in Fox's news reporting.

 

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939]

There is agenda driven selection bias in reporting from both Leftist and conservative news sources. But the agendas differ in ideology and variety.

 

The Left prefers collectivism and enjoys more conformity of opinion. Differences of editorial opinion in news outlets catering to the Left are across a relatively narrow spectrum with the occasional non-lefty strawman or token dissent. Conservatives tend less toward collectivism and among them we find great diversity of opinion. Any news source that wishes to appeal to the non-Leftist market must take into account a wider variety of agendas.

 

[moosetracker]

Everything said on this subject pretty much confirms my thinking in the beginning. Dislike of Fox is based simply on political perspective, as is my admitted dislike of MSNBC. However, MSNBC has given out information that is provably false. MSNBC edited the tapes of George Zimmerman's 911 call in such a way that it appeared he was after Martin because he was black. The full transcript showed he was answering a direct question when he first said anything about race. They later changed the story, but never admitted their bias. That was covered as hard news.

 

 

Very similar, would be the partial release tape of Obama talking about 14 years back when he said he believed in Redistribution. FOX did a short clip, but the full tape is an analysis by Obama about the good and the bad of Redistribution, and trying to open a discussion on how to not be wasteful.

 

Also the tape on the "Guns and Bibles" was a clipped tape.. It took out the parts where Obama was talking about how he would be working to go to these people and see if he could change their minds, which was different then the Romney 47% comment where he said he didnt have to worry about them as they will never take responsibility for their lives.

 

I also heard, FOX did not report on the 47% comments, then when Romney was going to do a press conference about it, they had to pretend no fore knowledge of the tape, though it was BIG NEWS in all the other news media..

 

Probably more your commentary pieces.. But, the recent conspiracy theorys about the polls and trying unskew them was laughable.. Also the new conspiracy theory about the jobless rate going to 7.8%..

 

MSNBC may not be perfect either, but I am at least am comfortable with the mixed panel approach. There are also some magazines and newspapers who try to bridge the bias by giving equal opportunity on bias stories from each camp.. I guess they either employ both liberal and conservative reporters and let them write differing stories or buy different stories from independent contractors or something..

 

Hey, if you think you are sufficiently getting your news from other sources to fix the FOX bias, then be happy with that. But, FOX alone will not give you the full picture.

 

[Kahuna]

I think you are referring more to commentary than hard news as to Fox clips. What you see on Hannity or O'Reilly is not necessarily hard news.

 

The MSNBC clip, OTOH, was presented in a news segment.

 

"FOX alone will not give you the full picture."

 

And certainly you will not find it on MSNBC.

 

[moosetracker]

Problem is, MSNBC does no hard news.. Only commentary shows.. So it does not matter if the tapes on Obama were discussed in a hard news slot or not.. Well if in a hard news slot, I guess that would make them worse, but MSNBC is incapable of rising to that same degree of injustice, because it doesn't do hard news..

 

Here is an interesing tape between Bill O'Reilly (FOX) and Ted Koppel (MSNBC).. Your very own Bill O'Reilly states MSNBC does not hard news.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xb6_qPqiTI

 

I do know the "Breaking News" on Romney trying to do damage control on the 47% tape, was a hard news story.. I saw it last night, can't refind the link.. But, It was Breaking News of Mitt Romney as he spoke, then afterward.. The FOX news anchors are saying "What tape? Didn't know anything about a tape.." In which case, they had spent two days in a cave..

 

The other ones even if only commentaries, then those tapes clipped, playing only a small section of them, then filling in the meaning for you (when the full playing of the tape would give you a different perspective).. Is either on equal grounds or worse then MSNBC, tape of Travon Martin..

 

My guess, if it was Travon Martin, most likely it was done on Rev Al Sharptons show.. He is my least favorite, and very much wrapped elbow deep into that news event.

[perdidochas]

Political ads don't affect me much, however, I do admire candidates who stay away from negative ads. Marco Rubio, one of my senators, didn't have a single negative ad against his opponents in my local TV market. ((don't know about what he did in the peninsula the rest of the state) but I only saw positive ads about himself from him, and primarily negative ads from his opponents) I would have voted for him anyway, but it made me feel better about my vote that he stuck to positive, from my view.

[Kahuna]

"The FOX news anchors are saying "What tape? Didn't know anything about a tape.." In which case, they had spent two days in a cave.."

 

I believe you are mistaken. I first heard about the Mitt Romney tape on Fox News. I can't remember the exact time frame, but it was the night before I first saw it in the newspaper.

[skeptic]

Just hope that here, on this forum, we have "equal" representation. If not, then it is turned into a biased political canvas. You can choose to not read them, but it is hard to ignore them.

[moosetracker]

OK I found the video in my history list..

 

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/fox-news-feigns-ignorance-romney-tapes-whe

 

 

FOX News Alert! Mitt Romney spoke moments ago at a pres conference in California. We just got video..

(Romney speech, on yes, I meant what I said..)

After speech On the Record.

(some Fox news anchor).. Lets go to Katie McFarlin, (something on who Katie is).. Katie before we get to what we originally asked you to join us on, Let me ask you about this press conference. I am flying a little bit blind. I havent seen the video about which Governor Romney is speaking other than the quotes are that apparently he said among other things is that the Obama supporters are dependent on the government and he called this quick press conference and your thoughts?

 

Anyway, more to the point, I want to bring you back around to your original question.

Can someone please point to something given as hard news (as opposed to commentators or analysts) on Fox News that has turned out to be false? This is not meant to be a snarky question.

 

Bottom line, from all your subsequent posts, I think, yeah you did ask it to be snarky.. Defiantly asked it while being closed minded and argumentative to you point of view..

 

So again, I say. If you think you are getting news from other sources (which I doubt are any less conservative in view) then fine.. But, you asked, and I have given you my viewpoint, and I don't see why I am now in an arguement over it with you, if you were being open minded to other peoples opinions, when you asked the question.

[Kahuna]

I don't see your point with those clips. Gretta van Susteran isn't a hard news reporter. York and the others on that panel are. At the time of the clip, they are saying the Romney tape had been out "for a couple of hours," so what kind of non-reporting are we talking about?

 

More to the point, this is not what I consider something Fox said that later turned out to be false. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to how it is.

 

I'm sorry if you think I'm being argumentative. However, I AM being argumentative, because I think the answer to my original question is that no evidence of false hard news by Fox has yet been offered.

[moosetracker]

The story broke on Monday Sept 15th on the Racheal Maddow Show.. Romney's interview was on the evening of Sept 17th.. 2 full days since the story broke.. Again another mis-truth on FOX's part.

 

But, you could be right. Although most news stations assign their serious reporters to cover an important breaking News show.. I don't follow FOX enough to week out whose who..

 

So who reported that President Obama didn't allude to the Libya attack as being terrorist related until 14 days later?.. I discussed this on a different thread, as I was confused with why conservatives thought this, as I had read news articles that stated the White house said it was related to terrorist attacks within 24 hours.. I had heard it mentioned several times. They did have it wrong though that the protests were still happening at the same time as when the cars came in with the terrorists.. Even saw a news show that walked us through where the cars stopped, how they entered, what the hit first, second, third.. This was probably 2 to 4 days after the attack.. I didn't remember the actual comment by the President in the Rose Garden, but knew what he said did not make me question conflicting information.. I also had to argue with someone as they thought the UN speech Obama gave still was saying the attack was by protesters, even after conservative news finally caught up with the rest of us on the facts.. I had to transcribe the text to show that although Obama talked about the protesters and talked about the attacks to Libya, where in totally two seprate unrelated areas of the speech.. (Page 9 of Political trends).

 

Anyway, I will not take the time to figure out who are you hosts for hardnews, and who are the commentary news hosts on FOX.. Just that whoever on there has such a bad, bad, very bad reputation of giving out false news, is bringing down the whole reputation of the entire station..

 

That's it for me on this subject.. Signing off..

[moosetracker]

I know I said I was done, but they just changed the MSNBC website yesterday. I am grumbling about finding my way around most of it, and hate the change, But it did help me find a much better archive system, that helped me find two shows that highlight my reality of It was linked to terrorism about 24 hours after the attack, as opposed to the conservative reality of No one said anything about a terrorist attack for 14 days! Most of all the President!, thanks in part to FOX news..

 

This is 24 hours after, it talks about the attack most likely being a terrorist attack.. AND talks about Pres. Obama, and VP. Biden preparing America for this reality in their speeches..

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/49012565#49012565

 

This has the video detailing the video of step by step of the terrorist attack, this was aired on Sept. 13th.. Two nights after the attack.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/49027233#49027233

 

Again I ask you What reality were you in? Who put you there? Who gave Romney this distorted viewpoint that was so out there, that he made a fool of himself in the debate about it?

 

In closing : One more video of Racheal Maddows, from last nights show, essentially saying just that, in respect to Tuesdays debate, and FOX news now pretending the Prez did not make those comments, or they were in relation to something else but just happened to be in this speech, or Romney was about to lay the Prez flat on this issue, but the moderator interrupted On top of showing all the other crazy news you conservatives swallow.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/49456831#49456831