Posted on Apr 9, 2014
Fox News Opinion Programming v. Everyone Else!
16.5K
442
198
8
1
7
<div>***Update***</div><div><br></div><div>I have realized that I have made a fatal flaw in this discussion. I should have only brought up the Opinion News Shows. Fox thrives on them--Fox & Friends, The Five, Hannity, McKelly, O'Reilly, etc. If you have seen opinion shows on Fox and other networks, what do you find appealing about them? Why do you watch them? They aren't strictly news programs--if that even exists anymore on cable--so what's the draw? Can you make a comparison between one of the Fox shows and any on the other networks? Admittedly, I cannot. I don't watch this stuff anymore and most of my viewing was on Fox. I don't read opinion pieces or anything like them for the most part. I don't care what other people think about the news, I just want to know what the news is. I do care what everyone here thinks though so let's continue the discussion! I am interested to see how this goes.....</div><div><br></div><div><div>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div></div><div>This discussion has evolved quite nicely. We have gone around and around and here's what I find to be the main takeaways: No news organization can be trusted, they are all sensationalists, they have political agendas (Fox=conservative while MSNBC=liberal), they are looking to make ratings, and the easiest being that liberals hate Fox and conservatives like it. <br></div><div><br></div><div>So, let's take the discussion forward. Given the conclusions I just stated, do you think that any news organization, Fox or otherwise, doesn't tell the truth? Can you provide some examples of a news anchor telling a lie, or perhaps stretching the truth. I have already posted a few about Fox, but I would like to see what my comrades who are on the political right have to say on the subject. Also, do you trust a particular newscaster or news channel? Do you watch local news instead of cable?</div><div><br></div><div>This thread has been pretty active and I want to keep it going so please, discuss!!!</div><div>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div>I imagine I may get some flack for this discussion, but I would like to have it anyways. First off, I do not like Fox News. I have a lot of reasons for this and can go into specifics, but the main reasons are: They lie, they distort facts, they make stuff up, and they are a platform for Conservatives specifically and in no way support other ideologies. They say they are fair and balanced, but to me, that sounds like the North Koreans calling their country the People's Republic of North Korea. Clearly, I am a liberal.<br></div><div><br>Why I think this is important: Many of our young Troops are impressionable and the station of choice for every office I have worked in has been Fox News. I have seen blind support from our Troops on important issues that require, in my opinion, individual scrutiny. Most people who watch the channel tend to repeat what is said without opinion. I find this to be dangerous.<br><br>Regarding other news organizations, comparing one with another doesn't take the discussion very far. I am specifically interested in discussing Fox. <br><br>I don't watch the news at all. I have removed myself from that sort of influence. I get all of my news from two sources: objective media outlets online and from the two news organizations that really matter: The Daily Show With John Stewart and The Colbert Report. It is from those shows that I see anything of Fox News. <br><br>Liberals: Do you agree with me? Why or why not?<br>Conservatives: Same question<br>Independents: Same question<br><br>I am very interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this type of media manipulation.<br></div>
Posted in these groups: 
Social Media
Social Media
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 61
5
5
0
Anyone who complains of Fox News and omits mention of the bias of other main stream news media is betraying an obvious ideological bias. Let me restate that in simpler, more direct terms: You (the person who created this discussion thread) are the one who is biased.<div><br></div><div>There has been bias in all news media - print as well as electronic - since time immemorial. Complaints against any one of them are the product of a personal bias that is counter to the bias of that news organization. </div><div><br></div><div>Now, let's consider your concern about Fox having an undue influence on the troops - those poor impressionable youngsters. Are they being force to watch Fox only? Indeed, I would join you in your complaint if they were forced to watch only one and excluded from all others even if that one coincided with my ideology. Could you say the same?</div><div><br></div><div>Anyone seeking "fair and balanced" reporting must view numerous sources. I do. Do you? I expose myself to news reported from outlets around the world. The Internet has been a blessing in my life. I look for areas of agreement and disagreement, compare sources, and try to filter out the background noise. Really. You should try it.</div><div><br></div><div>Lastly, if you find Fox News so reprehensible, I suggest that you avoid it. Unfortunately, any suggestion that you want everyone to avoid it sounds a bit tyrannical, doesn't it?</div>
(5)
(0)
CW2 Jonathan Kantor
Of course I'm biased. Find me a truly impartial person and they can just take the job of the only member on the Supreme Court. But I am also objective. I don't think you read through the whole post. We have been discussing this for a few days and have discussed bias at MSNBC, CNN, and other sources. The conversation has been developing very smoothly if you ask me.
When I mentioned the troops watching Fox News, I was talking about at their offices where they work. Often there is no alternative shown. And, yes I could say the same because that's what this thread is all about.
I do avoid Fox News. I only see it on the Daily Show and Colbert. I do read their articles online though. A suggestion of avoidance is in no way tyrannical. Tyrannical would be if I went through the studio, shot everyone, destroyed their equipment, and then had my secret police go all over the world hunting the rest of the affiliates down. I have a dissenting opinion and I have expressed it. I make no apologies for that.
One last thing, Sir, you have an awesome stache :) -That's not sarcasm.
(1)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
Not to go too far afield, I appreciate the observation on my "stache". Funny story... I first grew it while on active duty much to the chagrin of my immediate superior, a major. He feared that all the young enlisted men would want to follow my example, and they did. Many had to use mascara to give theirs some substance. One day a subordinate lieutenant agreed with the major that I should shave it off. The major beamed until the lieutenant further suggested that I simply allow my nasal hairs to grow and comb them to shape. Then I could suck them back into my nose whenever the major was present. <div><br></div><div>Sorry, I couldn't resist sharing that.</div><div><br></div><div>Now, as to your definition of "tyranny". No, shooting up the newsroom at Fox is not an act of tyranny. Tyranny is imposing one's will on those willing to subordinate their will to another without any benefit of law. Tyranny is the President ruling by fiat, causing government agents to act without any foundation in law. Tyranny is promulgated through any process that subordinates the free will of individuals to the will of another unlawfully.</div><div><br></div><div>Yes, we who serve(d) subordinated ourselves to superior commissioned and non-commissioned officers as well as the President. However, we did not subordinate ourselves unconditionally. We swore only to obey the lawful orders of those appointed over us. </div><div><br></div><div>How are we to judge what is lawful and what is unlawful? That is the rub. Our most important weapon is knowledge. Now, for those of you who complain about Fox News, keep in mind that it is objectively more accurate more often than the other major networks. Independent studies suggest this. Only ideologues argue against it and without the benefit of any objective evidence.</div>
(2)
(0)
CW2 Jonathan Kantor
First off, love the stache story :D Had me laughing like an idiot for a minute, so thanks for that!
One point you made stuck out to me and it's an irritant to those like me. The whole, President ruling by fiat is just plain wrong (If you are referring to executive orders). EOs were authorized by the Congress and they are a power given to the President. The only reason Congress doesn't take any steps to remove this authority is because they (I am referring to those currently in power, the GOP) don't want to not have that same power when their own candidate is in power. Power freely given is a power freely used.... by every single President who was authorized to do so.
Frankly, can you honestly blame the President for using EOs to get things done? The House is completely intransigent and in many ways, hostile. From the Senate Majority's own mouth, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." He was speaking during the midterm election but his comment did not make it any less obvious that they were unwilling to work with the Executive branch. The Speaker himself said that Congress, "Ought to be judged on how many laws we repeal." What does that say other than, we don't want to work with you so we won't? Coming from the left and seeing the voting record of both the House Majority and Senate Minority, there is little left than to say, ok, they won't work with me (Speaking as the POTUS) so I will do what is within my power to do. And he did and continues to do so.
It is true that EOs are used a lot less than they were when the power was granted but to date, President Obama has used the power 168 times. Many of his predecessors did it much more.
Bush - 291
Clinton - 364
Bush - 166
Reagan - 381
BTW at this point of my rant, I am really hoping EOs were what you meant by "Ruling by fiat" so I didn't just type all of that for no reason ;)
In my opinion, the current President had little option to get any work done in Washington when he used his Executive authority. Other Presidents have done so for far less.
Isn't the point of a Republic to work together? It can't function otherwise.
Back to your argument, I can't really state anything about the other networks. As I said, I don't watch them. I have only ever watched Fox News, which is why I brought it up here in the first place. What I failed to point out initially was that I was referring to their opinion shows, not their news shows. I see them as dangerous because people take what is said as fact when it often isn't.
Ok, that's it for now... I can't sleep but I am going to try again.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
Well if we are talking "a fight", Fox would win every time because these are actual businesses whose ultimate goal is to make money, and Fox News has higher ratings. Every single time. Fox is almost always first, then CNN, then MSNBC. So it's not even close there.
But they seem to have missed the fact that 85% of what Fox News Channel presents as 'straight news' is essentially fact-free and 'opinion-driven'.
Pew Research Center :
According ...
As for your other argument, a Pew Research Center study shows that MSNBC is 85% opinion-driven while Fox is only 45% opinion-driven, so I'd also argue that Fox wins there as well.
I'd argue finally that all of them are driven by one important metric:
MONEY.
They are a business. There is NOTHING, other than some sort of "gentlemen's code" that directs them to give you facts and only facts with no opinion. Their job is to make money and sell commercials. It's not their job to do anything else but that. Journalists may have some sort of "code" but the reality is they don't run the show, corporations do. Furthermore, Americans don't have too much capability to make up their own minds, so they somewhat require the news to tell them what to believe. Couple that with most people want to read something or have someone validate what opinions they DO have, they are going to tune in to whatever programming most closely resembles what they want to believe.
If you follow one news channel and one news channel only, you are being misinformed.
I generally have an RSS feed of Fox for headline news. I read what I want, and if I am truly interested I then Google News or whatnot for that specific story and read everything on the subject from HuffPo to The Blaze or whatever. I don't discriminate at that point.
Pew Research Center Study Claims MSNBC is 85 Percent 'Opinion-Driven' While Fox News Only 45 Percent
But they seem to have missed the fact that 85% of what Fox News Channel presents as 'straight news' is essentially fact-free and 'opinion-driven'.
Pew Research Center :
According ...
(4)
(0)
CW2 Jonathan Kantor
I prefer the Google News feed. It has pretty much every news source that exists attached to it.. small town papers, you name it. The one counterpoint to the Pew Research Poll is that Fox has more opinion shows than actual news shows. The poll actually covers what I already mentioned somewhere on this page about the overcompensation of lesser-news organization having to somehow compete against Fox, which as you said, has all the ratings and the money. The person who wrote the article on the Daily KOS seems to be more of my mindset than yours... or at least your argument.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Chief,
The same exact thing can be said for MSNBC and even CNN, the most moderate of all of the 24hr new stations, leans incredibly left. News stopped just telling you facts and letting you make the decision on your own a long time ago. I don't believe in any of them but I find it hard to focus on FOX because you don't agree with their point of view. Should be shut off other stations because I don't agree with them...that gets into a dark area we don't want to go.
(4)
(0)
CW2 Jonathan Kantor
Whoa! I am not advocating shutting Fox News down! I consider our freedom of speech to be the most important of our rights and would never advocate censorship. This thread was all about discussing Fox in the community, and explaining my viewpoint so I could see what other people had to say.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
CW2 Jonathan K. You started out bashing it and though I never watch it, it too is a choice not to do so.
(0)
(0)
CW2 Jonathan Kantor
Of course I started out bashing it! I find its lack of integrity displeasing (Paraphrased from Vader).
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
They all "lie" or at least distort the truth. If they didn't less people would watch, and there wouldn't be a rallypoint discussion about it.
(4)
(0)
CW2 Jonathan Kantor
True. They have to appeal to their base to keep the ratings up. I certainly understand that. My contention is that they claim to be a source for news and they most often aren't. You could say the same for MSNBC. The news used to be read regardless of oopinion. I blame Fox for the overt commercialization of the news. People like Walter Cronkite read the news. Fox and Friends just makes it up.
(1)
(0)
MSG Jose Colon
Good thing about Cronkite, it was very hard to tell he was a liberal, since he stuck to the facts.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
The fact that you are asking if a news outlet is dangerous, is the dangerous thing. Free speech involves the ability to discern the bias in news reports. If one outlet, or a gathering of them, has twisted the tidal view of opposing points of view so far as to cause one to wonder if watching the opposing view is dangerous then each side needs to take a breather. If that can't happen, as it can't now, then the consumer needs to take news from multiple sources and separate the wheat from the chaff.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I don't like that you COMPLETELY changed your question for this thread. It is misleading and makes the thread very difficult to follow. If you wanted a new question I think you should have started a new thread. The original question is not even in your previous "additional details" that you left.
I'm not sure if you are just trying to get a high response rate or not, but I think what you did was poor execution.
(3)
(0)
CW2 Jonathan Kantor
The original question is in there. I just changed the title and added a new explanation. Sorry for the confusion, I just felt that the responses had evolved the question so I changed it to keep it going.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I am an Independent. I used to be a republican until the ULTRA Conservative Right (Fundamentalist Faction) took over the party. Fox News - IS not NEWS it is an editorial channel and if you understand that then it is not dangerous. HOWEVER, most of the people who are mesmerized by Fox News do not realize it is editorial any more than the religious zealots who claim John Stewart and The Colbert Report as news.
Turn off your tv as far as "news" programing goes and listen to NEWS, not editorials. One of the main purposes of higher education is Critical Thinking and those who listen to political claptrap, right or left, are little more than sheep being led to slaughter.
(Now ask me what I really think - LOL)
(3)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
Ok Petty Officer Woods, I had to go back and look again. The write up reads - The Colbert Report is an American late-night satirical television program that airs Monday through Thursday on Comedy Central. It stars political humorist Stephen Colbert, a former correspondent for The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. So I looked at it again for 4-10-14 to make sure we were talking about the same thing.
You really consider this a RELIABLE news show? If that is not sarcasm I am not sure what you could possibly mean. I am not advocating the National Editorial Programs by any means, (BTW - BBC is much more reliable for news than any US station in my humble opinion.)
(1)
(0)
PO1 Brian Woods
No, but I would absolutely call it more reliable than cable news. I am not speaking to the reliability of Colbert Report, which does do what it is supposed to do - HUMOR. I am speaking to the terribly unreliable nature of cable news, which does not do what it is supposed to do - report the news. Cable news is opinionated BS with an agenda. It is a distraction and does not inform people so they can make intelligent decisions. It is part news and part Reality TV show - a bunch of idiot personalities acting like the news is what they do.
I tell it like I see it. Honestly, on this occasion, I can't see how anyone thinks that cable news has the integrity that the news is supposed to have.
I tell it like I see it. Honestly, on this occasion, I can't see how anyone thinks that cable news has the integrity that the news is supposed to have.
(1)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
I do agree with you about most of the "News" on Cable. As for me, I do get a lot of good information from BBC, at least about what happens in this country and most of the world with the exception of Great Britain.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
The news media are out of control - plain and simple. They have become news makers rather thn news reporters and investigators. The various media outlets have chosen who they wish to support (read, promote) and conduct their research and write the stories slanted in favor of their leanings. When did it start? Good question.
Maybe in the '90s when the Clinton's were being investigated for one scandal after another. Maybe after 9/11 when political pundits took to the airwaves to question Bush's responses to the terrorist attacks. Maybe in 2008 during a contentious campaign to name Bush's successor.
It seems to me the last time I remember responsible journalism was during the Gulf War (the first one of course). During that time, the news was the news and it was reported to the American public as such - both sides represented evenly and fairly.
During the 100 days - reporters became celebrities and soon after chose to become the news instead of reporting it. I remember being a CNN hound back in the early '90s. Now I could care less what they have to say about a story - it's not complete. I don't trust the media at all any more - and that is a shame.
(3)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
In fact CNN was so good and accurate the Network News was often the basis for our daily intel briefs on the situation in the Middle East. Since those days everything has deteriorated.
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
Personally, I feel as if Fox News and MSNBC are on opposing ends of the spectrum and there is a heavy bias whenever either channel is on. I don't watch CNN. The only news channel that I don't mind watching is Al Jazeera America, but like it was mentioned previously you have to remove the stigma of it being Al Jazeera. Not gonna lie when they called GEN Odierno the Secretary of the Army I did laugh.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Fox news is one of the few news sources with journalistic integrity. You have made some blanket accusations of Fox News "lying, distorting "facts" or making stuff up" - which is totally redundant to begin with, and makes it poor name calling at best. Then you end with another "claim" of media manipulation - inferring it is done by Fox News.
Please give specific examples so we can deal with your "claim" as it should be dealt with: all else is name calling. Pray tell us, which "news" outlet do you feel does not lie and is a better alternative than Fox. Tell us, by example, where they tell the truth and Fox News "lies".
Please give specific examples so we can deal with your "claim" as it should be dealt with: all else is name calling. Pray tell us, which "news" outlet do you feel does not lie and is a better alternative than Fox. Tell us, by example, where they tell the truth and Fox News "lies".
(3)
(0)
PO1 Brian Woods
I also believe Fox News lies, distorts, the truth, ignores facts. I am a conservative. They all do it. But because I am a conservative, I want Fox News to clean up there mess. Let the idiots watch the liberal stations. Fox News is my problem because I tend to want to watch conservative views. They are garbage.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google